Quote of the Day
It’s no contest:
This war is so horrible that poor Private Beauchamp started suffering from Pre Traumatic Stress Syndrome.
(Peter originally made the observation on his own blog, here.)
This unfortunate phenomenon — which tragically manifested itself in Scott Thomas Beauchamp Beauchump mocking a disfigured woman in Kuwait . . . while on his way to Iraq — was first identified by our friends at The Onion:
NORFOLK, VA—Pre-traumatic stress disorder, a future-combat-related psychological condition previously thought to afflict only young soldiers drafted against their will, is now found in growing numbers among National Guard members, Army, Navy, Marine, and Air Force reservists, semi-retired officers, and the newly recruited, according to a government study released Monday.
“When soldiers are put in the extreme situation of facing the possibility of large-scale death and shocking violence, many experience sleeplessness and outbursts of anger,” said Walter Reed Army Hospital psychologist Capt. Sidney Mullenthauer. “We’re seeing more victims experience vivid, ultra-realistic flash-forwards of roadside bombings that tear through a group of innocent children, or rocket attacks on their convoys that leave fellow soldiers charred and smoldering.”
“Many of these poor souls are forced to prelive, over and over again, a landmine blowing their legs off, or large pieces of shrapnel becoming lodged in the sides of fellow soldiers’ faces,” he added.
Army Pfc. Henry Gerard, 19, who suffers from acute Pre-TSD, said he blames the federal government for putting him in this mentally debilitating state.
“The government knows exactly what they intend to put me through, and they still haven’t done a damn thing about it, man,” said Gerard, who, nearly three weeks before reporting to Fallujah, suffers from nightmares in which his potential best friend is beheaded. “I can’t sleep, I can’t eat, my hands constantly shake. I’m going to a place where people I don’t even know will try to kill me. What the fuck?”
“I’m not the same man I once was,” Gerard said, adding that he spends every night drinking to drown out the screams and cries for help he expects to hear. “War is going to be hell.”
Scott Thomas Beauchump can relate, brother.
Damn, Patterico, I hate it when you post so spot on there’s nothing left to do than laugh.
Comment by Christoph — 8/7/2007 @ 1:11 am
And yet, when any administration official who lost a war or corrupted an entire governmental department says “I can’t recall” or “I can’t remember” they get a pass from the rabid right.
Some soldier gets one small detail wrong, and he gets swiftboated by gay porn stars…and the right cheers.
What a wacky world you guys inhabit.
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 1:37 am
Tell me, alphie, what would you have to say about it if a leftist reporter lost his job because he was outed as a former gay porn star? And then if conservatives kept bringing him up in unrelated contexts just so they could remind everyone of the leftist gay porn star?
We all know what you would do, you would accuse us all of being vicious homophobes. So what does that make you? Not a vicious homophobe, no, but just a vicious hypocrite who doesn’t really care about any of the things that you are constantly school-marming us about. All you care about is that we are the enemy and you will jump on or manufacture any pretext for scolding us and reveling in your own moral superiority.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 8/7/2007 @ 1:46 am
Ha! The ‘Staunch Republican’ surfaces for yet another beating! Time to play Whack-A-Troll!
Comment by Paul — 8/7/2007 @ 1:59 am
Doc,
I’d be more concerned about all the gay, Arabic speaking soldiers your guys booted from the services before and during our ill-conceived invasion of an Arabic speaking country if I were you.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml
I don’t think of you as the “enemy” so much as Republicans who have become so detached from reality that we’re gonna have to suffer under 30-40 years of Democratic party rule before America gives us another chance.
This guy is one soldier who told some mild tales.
Who cares?
It’s not going to change the outcome of the war one bit.
Stop acting like natural born peasants and channel some of your righteous anger at the lucky sperm club clowns who got us into Iraq in the first place and then destroyed any chance we had for a “victory” there.
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 2:23 am
I’d be more concerned about all the gay, Arabic speaking soldiers your guys booted from the services…
That is a Bill and Hillary co-Presidency policy - always doing what they can to undermine the military.
Comment by Perfect Sense — 8/7/2007 @ 2:35 am
That’s no way to talk about our next Commander in Chief, ps.
You guys should be supporting her.
After all, you’re the ones who will have put her in office.
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 2:50 am
No this is a guy who willfully and deliberately told tall tales in order to besmirch the honor and character of his fellow servicemen. And this is also about the fact that even the most reasonable of liberal newsmagazines were so primed to believe the worst about US servicemen they took his very problematic stories and published them without even the hint of verification.
You Leftists sure do “support” the troops.
You do. You’re here shrieking about it. If it had been proven to be true you would be jumping and prancing about, essentially celebrating and demanding we pay attention to the story.
Tell that to TNR. Maybe then they’ll stop hiring fabulists to give them war accounts.
Comment by Martin A Knight — 8/7/2007 @ 3:11 am
By the way, Bo-chump has recanted. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/236206.php http://ace.mu.nu/archives/236206.php
Comment by Insomniac — 8/7/2007 @ 3:21 am
Oops, sorry about the double link.
Comment by Insomniac — 8/7/2007 @ 3:21 am
Looks like I owe you an apology, Patterico. I didn’t see your post on Beauchamp’s recanting until after I commented. Sorry about that.
Comment by Insomniac — 8/7/2007 @ 3:24 am
Patterico;
Since you’re all about ‘anecdotes’ lately, and since PTSD is apparently a joke to you. (BTW, is bringing up your time in combat duty against the rules?), here’s one about how the government supports the troops…………
“Comments
Add comment
17 Jun 2007
Send an emailP Bryan
PTSD is real
I’m the Mrs. writing for the Mr., retired Army.
PTSD is real and hard to admit that you are suffering from it. Just because the military has been sweeping it under the rug for many years by intentionally labeling thousands of veterans with personality disorder [PD] in order to avoid their legal responsibility to provide life-time financial compensation for the mental problems caused by war does not mean it doesn’t exist. American veterans must unite and demand that the military and VA be FORCED to correct every single veterans record that has been falsely labeled with a PD in order to avoid the lifetime financial commitment to the veteran that the military promised them when the veteran agreed to put their life on the line for our country and that the military and VA owes our veterans. It is easy to understand why so many Americans and especially veterans know they have been lied to by their military leaders and why we, as Americans, have an underlying feeling of, as Barrack Obama put it, feeling ‘un-American.’ Yes, PTSD is correctable, but what about the 25 years the military DENIED my highly decorated, Silver Star veteran his medical benefits and left him on the street to fend for himself? It makes me sick at my stomach to think how my veteran was treated and to know that our country turned its back on so many Vietnam Veterans. My veteran is wrought with major medical issues but has been told because he didn’t jump on the Agent Orange band wagon when it was circling, he has no recourse against the military or VA regarding the errors contained in his military record. I tried to get it corrected and they used 5 pages of legal mumbo jumbo to dance around the issue when they know the PTSD was incorrectly labeled and they know WHY it is was and is being done to this day. Is this fair, no. Does the VA or military care, no. Until Americans demand honesty from the military and VA in dealing with veterans, then veterans benefits will NEVER improve. Veterans, united and refuse to accept an honorable discharge based on a diagnosis of personality disorder and instead, fight for your rights to demand a full medical disability discharge for PTSD. This is nothing more than being told you are an outcast because you can’t deal with the effects of what your hostile work environment has done to you. America has yet to see the true devastation of the war(s) we are involved in around the world. The real damages will begin to surface in 10/15/20 years when the present veterans that are coming home that ‘appear’ to be okay and tell everyone they are okay now are suddenly wrought with the horrific scars, internally and externally, that these wars are leaving with the veterans. My heart goes out to veterans and America does owe its veterans better than the scraps that have been tossed their way. America has treated many veterans pathetically. What in the world would the VA do if the thousands and thousands of veterans that are eligible for benefits actually applied and was granted the benefits they rightfully were promised? It would probably send the national budget into orbit. Our government and the President is too worried about pushing an amnesty bill that provides for illegals rather than deal honestly with the veterans and with integrity. More than likely, many veterans would testify that they were enticed into the military with an aggressive sign up and then money was used as a tool for re-enlistment retention. However, it is a well-known fact that countless thousands upon thousands of veterans are denied the benefits they EARNED, oftentimes at the expense of their mental health, which frequently proves to be life-threatening more frequently than not. Sad but true state of our country’s affairs. As a nation, why are we less worried about denying benefits to our veterans and more worried about denying benefits to millions of illegal immigrants, more especially when our government has so horrifically neglected the rights of its veterans? How did we get to the point where the rights of illegal immigrants surpass the rights of US Veterans? God Bless this country. God knows we need it.”
http://www.veteransforamerica.org/comments.cfm?page=display&id=9646
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 3:50 am
Now that’s not to say there aren’t bogus claims……….
http://www.vva.org/veteran/0606/vva_article1.html
But since money is at stake, and we want our taxes
as low as possible………………………
http://www.vawatchdog.org/milcom/veteransbenefitsarenotsafe.htm
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 3:56 am
Semanticleo,
What part of “pre” is giving you trouble?
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 8/7/2007 @ 4:10 am
Alphie urged:
Stop acting like natural born peasants and channel some of your righteous anger at the lucky sperm club clowns who got us into Iraq in the first place and then destroyed any chance we had for a “victory” there.
Would that “lucky sperm club” include the following individuals?
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
Comment by Michael Smith — 8/7/2007 @ 4:12 am
Kellogg;
I understand “I’m on disablity (clinical depression and generalized anxiety disorder)”
Do you have the quality of ‘empathy’?
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 4:29 am
Ah, thanks for reminding us that to “swiftboat” is to relate unpleasant truths, alphie. After all, what Sanchez reported was that he couldn’t find anyone on FOB Falcon that recalled the burned woman. And TNR recanted the FOB Falcon story, transplanted it to Kuwait and apologized.
Sanchez was spot on. Just like John O’Neill. Thanks for the memories.
Comment by Pablo — 8/7/2007 @ 4:30 am
This is what I love about the left. This is a post about a guy who has now admitted he lied about pretty much everything, disparaging his fellow troops in his unit (and before you attack me as a chickenhawk for pointing this out, know that I did serve).
It was discovered that Beaucamp wrote the same basic stories before he ever went to Iraq, and that indeed, he now claims the “burnt woman” incident happened in Kuwait, before he went to Iraq. So, Patterico makes a joke about PRE-traumatic stress disorder.
Becuase people like Semanticleo are so intelligent, they immediately understand that what the right is saying is that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder does not exist and that we hate anyone who claims they have it. See this brilliance by Cleo:
Kellogg;
I understand “I’m on disablity (clinical depression and generalized anxiety disorder)”
Do you have the quality of ‘empathy’?
These people’s inability to comprehend simple arguemnts, or their willingness to knowingly lie about their opponent’s arguments and positions, is truly frightening.
Why is the left, like Alphie, so unable to argue and debate honestly? Alphie, Cleo, does it not bother you that you feel the need to be totally dishonest in your arguments? That should tell you something about the quality of your arguments and whether or not you are on the right side. Seriously. If you had good arguments and were on the right side of the debate, you would not always need to lie about pretty much everything - including your own ideology and your opponent’s views.
- GB
Comment by Great Banana — 8/7/2007 @ 4:50 am
There is no part of this sentence that is even remotely correct.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/7/2007 @ 4:59 am
“you would not always need to lie about pretty much everything -” (emphasis mine)
What was the lie, GB?
That’s what I like about the Right. Their
simple-minded, pat answers about their black-and-white world obscures any but their own views, even when disguised as open debate. The thinly disguised derogation of PTSD will soon erupt into the full-blown frontal attack, per the talking points. You will be equipped with facts, figures and graphs showing logically, why we must
stop paying veterans benefits for PTSD. It will be necessary for the good of the Nation. You know, in the interests of National Security.
>Idiot.>
Ah, but there is no reason to believe this will happen. Conspiracy? What conspiracy?
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 5:15 am
.. the gay, Arabic speaking soldiers …-alphie
alphie, do you realize that the United States is one of the limited places on earth such people are allowed the basic human right of “life”. Very different from the majority of nations where Arabic is the main language, I believe. (Thus ends my discussions with alphie.)
Since you’re all about ‘anecdotes’ lately, and since PTSD is apparently a joke to you.-semanticleo
semanticeo, did you understand Alan Kellogg’s comment yet? No one has made a joke of PTSD, the joke has been made of someone claiming mental distress from war before they went to the war. That claim is what makes a joke of PTSD, and others are happy to show the absurdity of such a claim.
Many people may have PTSD prior to going to combat because of other terrible things that happen in life, just don’t attribute it to something in the future.
Comment by MD in Philly — 8/7/2007 @ 5:22 am
Anybody have the key to the recording studio? Moby got locked out again.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/7/2007 @ 5:26 am
Yes, Pre Traumatic Stress Disorder is a joke. Thanks for playing.
Comment by Pablo — 8/7/2007 @ 5:33 am
MD;
“No one has made a joke of PTSD,”
Stay tuned. But you COULD say something in support of troops who are abused by the VA system. You know, just to show where you stand.
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 5:33 am
Hey, you could write that story on your blog, ‘cleo, and then discuss it in great detail. Heck, I’d even agree with you, since it would be an actual topic and not a strawman.
This thread is about something else, though.
Comment by Pablo — 8/7/2007 @ 5:45 am
Michael Smith (#15): Nice smack-down; thanks.
Comment by Old Coot — 8/7/2007 @ 5:50 am
“since it would be an actual topic and not a strawman.”
See how it works, Pablo? First you READ the link,
THEN, you comment.
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 5:56 am
[...] Update 8/7 945am Eastern. A diagnosis of pre-traumatic stress disorder. [...]
Pingback by Michelle Malkin » Report: Beauchamp recants — 8/7/2007 @ 5:57 am
[...] Cadillac Tight / Confederate Yankee / Lifelike Pundits / Flopping Aces / Power Line / Law Hawk / Patterico / Don [...]
Pingback by Beauchamp: No! I was lying to TNR, not to the U.S. Army, really! « Volunteer Opinion Journal — 8/7/2007 @ 6:19 am
Yes, you read the post, and the links and then you comment on the topic at hand. Given that you understand the process, why are you so incapable of following it? Are you so haunted by strawmen that you can’t ever escape their presence?
Comment by Pablo — 8/7/2007 @ 6:19 am
Oh, the lie is right here:
You know it’s crap, you know it’s a strawman and yet you run with it anyway.
Comment by Pablo — 8/7/2007 @ 6:21 am
Because it’s all he’s got, Pablo…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/7/2007 @ 6:24 am
“Oh, the lie is right here:”
You’re still reading? Carry on. I want to
see what rises to consciousness next.
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 6:27 am
Semantic, how about you get on board and join us for the real topic, the moral and ethical turpitude of STB and TNR…
Their “vigorusly check and verified” story has proven to be utter and complete bunk from word one.
The “smidgen of truth” his story contained was that he was, indeed, in the army, and was, indeed, in Iraq.
Everything else a lie. A pure, complete lie.
Why don’t we discus how it is that so many people on the right were abel to see it almost immedeately, and you and your ilk still seem to cling to the idea that it is all truth.
Even when faced with evidence that it isn’t.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/7/2007 @ 6:32 am
Scott;
Beauchamp is a liar. I do not know what his motives might be, but good intentions is the best case scenario.
I thought saying so was unnecessarily redundant, but piling on is what this thread is about.
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 6:43 am
“Why don’t we discus how it is that so many people on the right were abel to see it almost immedeately, and you and your ilk still seem to cling to the idea that it is all truth.”
That’s the point I was making. It’s all driven by the talking points, predispostions and myopia
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 6:46 am
Beauchump suffers from Baron Von Munchausen’s disease—a spinner of tall tales.
Alphie suffers from Von Hirschsprung’s disease {definition, extreme chronic constipation, i.e. he’s full of cr#p)
Come to think of it, Beauchump also has a touch of Von Hirschprung’s.
Comment by Mike Myers — 8/7/2007 @ 6:48 am
Cleo,
Your response proves my point. In a post making fun of Beauchamp for basically having Pre-Trumatic Stress Disorder (i.e., he wrote about doing awful things b/c he was so changed by a war he had not yet been to - thus PRE not POST traumatic stress).
There were no comments about POST traumatic stress disorder. Nobody said they don’t believe it exists. So, either you are incredibly stupid and can’t understand that, or you are lying and claiming we are making fun of real PTSD. Based on having read many of your ‘arguments’ in the past, I could believe the former.
You go ahead and make the claim that we are making fun of Post-TSD - WHICH IS A LIE. You have to raise strawman arguments, lies about what our beliefs are, lies about what the post itself is about, etc. THERE IS THE LIE. YOU ARE A LIAR.
And, as I said earlier, having seen your writings and comments on many blogs, you calling someone else an idiot is a laugh. I have yet to see you make a rational argument about pretty much anything, or be intellectually honest or consistent in your arugments. You routinely bring up staw-men, mistate facts, and basically LIE.
Thus, my main point stands. How can you believe in your own ideology when you can’t even debate honestly, rationally, and with some civility? If your side was so right, why the need for the constant lying, topic changing, and name calling? The chickenhawk argument, calling us greedy and bloodthirsty and evil, etc? If you had the winning arguments, why not just make the winning arguments? The only reason why you don’t is because you cannot. And I ask, if you have no real arguments to make, why do you have so much faith in your ideology?
If you were right, you would simply make rational argument that would stand for themselves. You do not do that. Instead, strawmen, lies and namecalling is what we get.
Look at someone on your side like Alphie, pretending he is a “real conservative” and the rest of us just some kind of “kool aide drinkers”. Why the need to lie about his own ideology? Does he really think we will wake up one day and say “gee, that guy Alphie is a ‘real conservative’ but thinks we should do X, Y, or Z. I guess I’ve been wrong all my life and real conservatism is doing exactly why the far left liberals want, b/c a self-professed real conservative like Alphie said so.”
I mean, come on! Just be honest and argue your points. Don’t lie and put words in your opponents mouths all the time. Don’t be an ass for the sake of being an ass.
Every time I see a post from you on this or any other blog, it is like arguing with a 13 year old.
Comment by Great Banana — 8/7/2007 @ 6:48 am
“it is like arguing with a 13 year old.”
Then it’s a fair fight.
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 6:52 am
See how it works, Pablo? First you READ the link,
THEN, you comment.
Miss ‘cleo,
maybe Pablo is suffering from Pre-Traumatic Link Syndrome?
Comment by mojoe — 8/7/2007 @ 6:56 am
Lying about war crimes and behavior that should enrage any sane human being…
Where, pray tell, would be the good intentions?
I’m being serious. Explain to me how what STB did could have been done out of good intentions?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/7/2007 @ 6:58 am
Shorter ‘cleo: “I know you are, but what am I?”
Comment by I'm Geekier — 8/7/2007 @ 6:58 am
Beauchamp is a liar. I do not know what his motives might be, but good intentions is the best case scenario.
You know about the road to hell Miss ‘cleo?
And what do you think those “good intentions” were?
Comment by mojoe — 8/7/2007 @ 6:59 am
“since PTSD is apparently a joke to you.”
Directed to Patterico, because it seems he is being fed derogations designed to undermine PTSD, just as on a previous thread he said I was a conspiracy nut (apparently). How does that qualify as a lie directed at you and others”
“calling us greedy and bloodthirsty and evil,”
Another unsubstantiated claim of LIE
Where did I say that? Your delusion is a BIG part of that equation.
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 7:00 am
”But goodness alone is never enough. A hard, cold wisdom is required for goodness to accomplish good. Goodness without wisdom always accomplishes evil.”
–Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger In A Strange Land
Comment by I'm Geekier — 8/7/2007 @ 7:01 am
“STB did could have been done out of good intentions?”
There is no basis for believing it. Just sayin’
“but piling on is what this thread is about.”
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 7:03 am
I grok Geekier.
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 7:10 am
Since we are not mind readers, we judge a person’s intentions by the natural and foreseeable consequences of his actions. Does anybody see anything other than the vilification of our military?
Comment by nk — 8/7/2007 @ 7:14 am
Does ‘glorification of himself’ count?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/7/2007 @ 7:16 am
“see anything other than the vilification of our military?”
Yeah, narcissism.
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 7:16 am
Fair enough.
Comment by nk — 8/7/2007 @ 7:30 am
It doesn’t account for TNR’s intentions though.
Comment by nk — 8/7/2007 @ 7:33 am
And honestly, I don’t think he even CONSIDERED how it would reflect on the military.
It made him sound cool, at least in his own mind. I suspect his thought process stopped right there…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/7/2007 @ 7:34 am
Oh.
Well, that’s easy.
They’re morons.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/7/2007 @ 7:34 am
Sorry for the commentus interruptus, I’m multi-tasking this morning.
Comment by nk — 8/7/2007 @ 7:35 am
What, actualy working?
What have I told you about doing that?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/7/2007 @ 7:41 am
[...] update: Patterico joins in. Posted by Jeff G. @ 8:20 pm | Trackback Share [...]
Pingback by "Beauchamp recants" [UPDATED] — 8/7/2007 @ 7:52 am
It seems you are a delusional, projecting fool with an addiction to the strawman fallacy.
Comment by Pablo — 8/7/2007 @ 8:03 am
ha ha ha… etc.
Comment by AF — 8/7/2007 @ 8:16 am
The issue isn’t whether some people are or are not schmucks, the issue is how we deal with it, and with the larger issues. You do all you can to ignore the war itself unless you have what you consider good news. It’s all politics to you.
Here is your war:
Comment by AF — 8/7/2007 @ 8:21 am
Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
The Pakistani Ambassador: “Only a few training camps”
There’s been a lot of news over the past few days, not much if any showing that as you would say “the Republicans are strong on national defense.”
In fact they’re absolute fuck-ups.
On Beauchamp let’s see what happens, but it’s a side issue.
The CIA’s torture chambers are not
Comment by AF — 8/7/2007 @ 8:28 am
He was doing so well too. Seems he’s reverted…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/7/2007 @ 8:31 am
AF, I can’t wait to see your blog, where you post the issue that interest you instead of injecting every freaking strawman you can post on to every freaking thread here.
This issue is that you are a schmuck, and far, far worse. In fact, I seem to recall you being under scrutiny for child molestation. Why should we listen to a pedophile like you?
Comment by Pablo — 8/7/2007 @ 8:44 am
Nothing to see here … move along … Maybe Beauchamp lied, but it does not change anything about Iraq, and the wingers will do anything to talk about anything other than Iraq. This was a coordinated political distraction.
The Left’s talking points and memes are as predictable as they are tiresome.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 8:53 am
Oh joy, self-loathing AF has returned flogging the fake but irrelevant meme. Don’t look here, look over there.
AF, why don’t you hook up with Semanticleo and her husband for a good wallow in a pit of despair, although her husband, by HER account (which we are under no obligation to accept based on the poster’s track record of lack of honesty) to honorably earned his disability by serving his country. The twosome, at a minimum, would be interesting, although I would suggest checking for STD’s in advance.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2007 @ 9:26 am
Err … I believe the minimum blog etiquette for unacceptable comments should parallel the common-law causes for divorce:
1. No unfounded accusations of having committed a felony;
2. No unfounded allegations of marital infidelity;
3. No unfounded allegations of having a sexually transmitted disease.
(I don’t know that “desertion” would apply but I think “insanity” is ok and sometimes the only appropriate judgment.)
Comment by nk — 8/7/2007 @ 9:48 am
nk - I made no actual allegations of crimes, commissions of infidelity or the actual possession of an STD, but thanks for the reminder. I have suspicions, but no proof, just like the left.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2007 @ 9:58 am
I understand “I’m on disablity (clinical depression and generalized anxiety disorder)”
Do you have the quality of ‘empathy’?
That’s the toughest one to prove, especially for a realtively young and physically healthy person. I don’t know that I have the “quality of empathy” but I do have the quality of perspective, practicality and pride in the country in which I live. This is not Bangladesh. We can very well afford the pittance SSI pays to keep our mentally ill out of the gutter.
(Sarcasm alert) Well … as long as it doesn’t take away from the 22 billion dollars in pork the Democrat House just voted on including the 150 million dollar earmark for the John Murtha Featherbed For Mouth Breathers Who Keep Re-electing Him.
Comment by nk — 8/7/2007 @ 9:59 am
All troll-feeders are hereby required to write a brief essay either on what they hope to accomplish with their efforts, or on how they will reform. Here’s mine:
OK, you guys, your turn. You know who you are.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 10:15 am
Geez ras, you say “substance abuse” like there’s something wrong with that. Keep your lifestyle choices to yourself please!
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2007 @ 10:25 am
daleyrocks,
Single-malt excepted
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 10:30 am
Back on topic: TNR has responded via The Plank. Apparently they’re sticking to their story.
Comment by gp — 8/7/2007 @ 10:46 am
What a shock.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/7/2007 @ 10:56 am
ras, if the blog owner does not exterminate the blogroaches, then I feel obligated to treat them as commentors.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/7/2007 @ 11:11 am
I like to treat them in kind.
Comment by Pablo — 8/7/2007 @ 11:27 am
Robin,
if the blog owner does not exterminate the blogroaches, then I feel obligated to treat them as commentors.
Why? You are not obligated to respond to anyone, not to the weirdos downtown who mumble angrily at passers-by, and not to the trolls here.
But if it’s etiquette to the owner that’s your concern, let’s not speculate, let’s ask:
Patterico,
Would you rather that commenters respond to, or ignore, obviously trollish comments? Any pref?
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 11:44 am
Pablo,
I like to treat them in kind.
To my mind, “in kind” would mean that you would consistently ignore the substance of any argument in favor of using it as a mere pretext for vacuous insults, since trolls *never* treat your args seriously, not really.
What do the words “in kind” mean to you?
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 11:47 am
The more time trolls spend frothing at the mouth, pecking on their keyboards, and stamping their widdle footsies at us, the less time they have to successfully procreate. I consider that a service to humanity.
Comment by I'm Geekier — 8/7/2007 @ 11:47 am
Cute, I’m Geekier, but …
… it sounds like your defending the practice. If you enjoy a trollish exchange that’s one thing, tho why anyone would is beyond me. Too much like taking a Monty Python sketch seriously, methinks.
But I’m looking for serious argument and insight and can’t get that when the feeders and their trolls are playing na-na boo-boo all over the comments.
This discussion area can descend to the troll level, and there it will stay, or it can be something more intelligent. I guess what I’m wondering is which way it’s gonna go. I’d say, from what I’ve seen lately, that it’s at a crossroads.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 11:55 am
Oh, you’re looking for an argument? Well, this is abuse! You want 21A for an argument.
…stupid git
Since you brought up Monty Python. No insult intended.
Sometimes it’s fun to chum the waters and watch the trolls bite. Sometimes it gets out of hand. But I save my serious conversation time for face-to-face; my use of teh internetz is mostly for fun.
Comment by I'm Geekier — 8/7/2007 @ 12:08 pm
ras,
A “troll” is just someone you disagree with.
Your idea of “serious argument” is where everyone accepts the pro-war crowd’s talking points as the Gospel Truth and go from there.
Suggested “serious arguments” for ras world:
Just how successful is the surge?
Democrats: Dumb or traitors?
Iraq is going so well…should we just attack Iran and Syria next, or should we invade Pakistan, too?
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 12:13 pm
I’m Geekier,
With respect (and I say that as a sincerely dead parrot), the trolls aren’t the ones biting; you are.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 12:15 pm
Ask Obama…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/7/2007 @ 12:19 pm
See, alphie makes my point for me: It ain’t about what it’s about; it’s about narcissists who can’t grow up. Thx for the illustration, alphie.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 12:20 pm
Scott,
Ask Obama…
You’re feeding it. All he wants is to get a serious reaction of any kind.
Anyway, I’ve made my points and you’re all welcome to disagree and continue on your current path; up to you. Meanwhile, I gotta get some more work done for a while. I’ll check in later this eve to see what’s up, but I gotta say that if this group is devolving into a troll-response forum, I won’t be checking in much more often, and I suspect I’m not the only one.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 12:24 pm
ras,
Like all “victories” the rabid right claim, this one is rather hard to see.
Do keep waving that tattered “Mission Accomplished” banner, though.
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 12:33 pm
“honorably earned his disability by serving his country”
Daleyrocks, you are as mind-numbingly stupid as Pablo who doesn’t bother to read past his mindset.
That quote was from Kellogg’s blog profile (commenter above), not mine.
idiot.
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 2:07 pm
Do keep waving that tattered “Mission Accomplished” banner, though.
That’s the best you’ve got, Mr. ‘Staunch Republican’?
Comment by Paul — 8/7/2007 @ 2:09 pm
You’re feeding it. All he wants is to get a serious reaction of any kind.
That’s why I declared Whack-a-troll time, ras!
Comment by Paul — 8/7/2007 @ 2:10 pm
Daleyrocks, you are as mind-numbingly stupid as Pablo
You, my dear Miss Cleo, are eminently unqualified to make that statement.
Comment by Paul — 8/7/2007 @ 2:14 pm
Alphie said “And yet, when any administration official who lost a war or corrupted an entire governmental department says “I can’t recall” or “I can’t remember” they get a pass from the rabid right. Some soldier gets one small detail wrong, and he gets swiftboated by gay porn stars…and the right cheers. What a wacky world you guys inhabit.”
God, still laughing. And you posted it today? If you mean one small detail being the entire thing you would be correct. Swiftboating? When you point out the error in what was said, or better yet actually quote the person verbatim? So you admit the quote from the Army was correct? Gay porn star….ah, dude, you crack me up.
Comment by buzz — 8/7/2007 @ 2:17 pm
“I’d be more concerned about all the gay, Arabic speaking soldiers your guys booted from the services before and during our ill-conceived invasion of an Arabic speaking country if I were you.”
Just keeps getting better! Now I am all for booting the gay arabic speaking soldiers out of the service! After all, their GAY! Which means they have no credibility. How can you trust their translations? Their gay! May have watched gay porn!
Comment by buzz — 8/7/2007 @ 2:19 pm
buzz, hmmmm, that one had too much subtlety for alphie.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/7/2007 @ 2:21 pm
I will try to work mile high berms and balloons into it next time.
Comment by buzz — 8/7/2007 @ 2:29 pm
So Leo, are you denying that you are a woman suffering from clinical depression and generalized anxiety disorder married to a vet with PTSD? Let’s get the record stright here.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2007 @ 2:54 pm
“Let’s get the record stright here.”
Did your parents have any children who lived?
Comment by Semanticleo — 8/7/2007 @ 3:13 pm
I’m changing the subject in, hopefully, a constructive way. The quote of the decade is in here. An attaboy to whomever finds it first.
Comment by nk — 8/7/2007 @ 3:16 pm
That article is filled with quotes, but it’s got to be this one:
Comment by Paul — 8/7/2007 @ 3:25 pm
Yeah, they’re all jealous because Hillary gets to sleep with Bill every few months and that’s probably the frequency they too could manage with him depending on his schedule.
The quote makes no sense at all.
Comment by Christoph — 8/7/2007 @ 3:28 pm
I just wanna say that I hate nk for making me read that page.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/7/2007 @ 3:46 pm
Yes Leo, my brother is an only child. Now back to you and self-loathing AF and Alphie wallowing in that pit of despair. Are you suggesting that a husband is not an impediment at the current time or what exactly are you saying?
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2007 @ 3:54 pm
“Did your parents have any children who lived?”
Wow, that really takes me back. Has it really been 31 years since jr. high?
Comment by buzz — 8/7/2007 @ 4:25 pm
‘cleo held back, buzz. It could have hit you with the invincible “Your mother wears Army boots”.
Comment by I'm Geekier — 8/7/2007 @ 4:44 pm
NK,
There’s too many quotes in that article. It could be her description of her mother, her yearnings for a Nobel or Pulitzer Prize, or her Hillary-Bill complex. Or perhaps her fondness for dogs as “dread absorbers.” But if I had to choose one, I vote for this: “I feel like, at any moment, I could lose everything and be working at Dunkin’ Donuts.”
Comment by DRJ — 8/7/2007 @ 5:19 pm
buzz, you young whippersnapper.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/7/2007 @ 5:23 pm
“I feel like, at any moment, I could lose everything and be working at Dunkin’ Donuts.”
That was the one I would have chosen, DRJ, if the Hillary one wasn’t in there.
Comment by Paul — 8/7/2007 @ 5:57 pm
If Miss Cleo was in my jr. high, she would have been laughed off school grounds for such pathetic insulting skills.
Comment by Paul — 8/7/2007 @ 6:02 pm
—-And yet, when any administration official who lost a war or corrupted an entire governmental department says “I can’t recall” or “I can’t remember” they get a pass from the rabid right.
ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER’S
Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn’t remember, didn’t know, or something similar.
Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O’Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697
Comment by red — 8/7/2007 @ 6:03 pm
Everybody who played wins. At least they stopped letting the goshdarned trolls drive the discussion.
I like the “libidinally attached” because my wife, who is the one who reads the NYT, pointed it out to me and said “That’s true”. Hmmm, I wonder in what ways I resemble Bill Clinton. I’m married to a very smart and very talented woman and like to eat at McDonald’s but otherwise ….
DRJ, “I feel like, at any moment, I could lose everything and be working at Dunkin’ Donuts” may be the quote of the century. The specter of economic insecurity has been with us since the early seventies and shows no sign of going away.
Comment by nk — 8/7/2007 @ 6:38 pm
Hi Patterico,
I haven’t commented before.
Sorry to butt in the comments section, I didn’t see how else to contact you.
Have your heard by now of the two illegal aliens that murdered 15 yr old Dani Jen’e Countryman in Milwaukie, OR last month?
It’s all over the NW news. You can find it at KPAM 860 radio site.
Comment by LJ — 8/7/2007 @ 6:43 pm
ras,
That wouldn’t work because there’s generally no substantive argument. Lots of strawmen and misdirection, but they generally don’t argue your point.
What I mean by “in kind” treatment can be exemplified by AF and Matt Sanchez. AF insists he’s a con man, because there were once accusations which had no substance. But that doesn’t matter. The accusations are sufficient to assume guilt.
An “in kind” response reveals an accusation that AF is a child molester and then assumes it as TRVTH. Quid Pro Quo.
Comment by Pablo — 8/7/2007 @ 6:52 pm
nk:
The “Dunkin’ Donuts” one may be more true, but the “libidinally attached” quote is comedy gold for morning drive-time radio. That’s why I picked that one.
Comment by Paul — 8/7/2007 @ 6:59 pm
I work at a VA hospital. I can tell you that for every complaint there are at least a dozen guys grateful for the care that we struggle to provide. Everyone wants the VA to solve all the problems that Vets have. And as a Vet, I KNOW that we deserve it. But every time something is missed or someone (And the Vet himself can sometime be at fault you know)drops the ball, ANOTHER rule/paper/form/policy is born, slowly but surely tearing the compassion out of the most dedicated employee. I take my committment to my fellow vets seriously, an extension of an oath I took as a Navy Corpsman thirty years ago. And I bust my butt to make sure that when my Sons come home from their service in the Navy that I will have provided the best safest and most effecient care I am allowed. Yes allowed.No other hospital system runs under the bureacratic load like we do.You want to make sure these guys get the full measure of care they deserve? Get your congressman to spend less time and money showing his ass at every complaint and provide the funding we need to attract the numbers of talented people we need to help our heroes. But like everything else in this world there will be manipulative douchebags who try and get what they don’t deserve, our friend Beauchump is a Sterling example. We need help and support in flushing these a**holes out of system to make way for those who really need help.
Sadly, the VA is a big politcal football for those who want piss in the other parties Cheerios. It’s the main reason for most of the problems we face. But you already knew that didn’t you?
Comment by paul from fl — 8/7/2007 @ 7:06 pm
Cleo is really showing his/her/its ass today, huh? Not that any of us particularly wanted to see it. Just sayin’
Now, back to Oliver Willis, sementicleo. Back to the echo-chamber, where you and O-Dub and frameone can stroke each other off talking about how evil everyone is that does not agree with you.
Or, just start taking your meds again.
The inability to differentiate between PRE and POST is either a sign of mind numbing stupidity, or an aggressive ignorance. Either way, it is stunning, even for you.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 7:19 pm
Paul #112,
I agree.
Comment by nk — 8/7/2007 @ 7:21 pm
JD,
The inability to differentiate between PRE and POST … is a sign of ego larger than reason. Of course sementicleo can see reality, but seeing it is not the same as admitting it.
Who says you need a sample size larger than one to understand the Left!
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 7:25 pm
So the support the troops crowd is saying that anyone in the U.S. military serving in Kuwait, Qatar, Dubai or even back home ain’t doing anything of note?
Should they even get military benefits?
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 7:42 pm
My sample size theory from semanticleo is confirmed; there is but one troll and its name is all trolls.
All of them to be ignored, guys; don’t let me down!
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 7:50 pm
What in the hell is this supposed to mean? I know that alphie will not respond in a rational way, but maybe somebody reading this has an alphie to English translation guide?
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 8:02 pm
You make a poor leader, ras.
Current zones U.S. military personnel receive combat (imminent danger) pay for serving in:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Oman
Bahrain
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Kosovo
http://www.militarymoney.com/getthis/49
Can we expect all the budget conscious Republicans to lead the charge to get money back from the troops who got extra money for serving in Kuwait?
And end this silly practice once and for all?
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 8:03 pm
Yeah, I see your point, alphie. I cannot imagine a scenario where US military personnel might be in danger in any of the above listed countries. None. Chicken-soldiers, all of them.
You are one brain-poundingly stupid ass. Terrorists would never even consider targeting the staging area, and main points of travel, would they. Your stupidity knows no bounds.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 8:11 pm
sorry, ras.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 8:11 pm
alphie, you’re a lying jerk. Sorry, ras.
Comment by Christoph — 8/7/2007 @ 8:12 pm
NK,
I reacted to this quote slightly different than you did, although we both end up in the same place. If I lost my job, I wouldn’t despair about working at Dunkin’ Donuts. It’s honest work for an honest dollar. My definition of failure is not working because a job is beneath me or letting other people judge me based solely on the size or source of my paycheck.
I think the fascinating thing about this comment is that it illustrates how insecure many people are about themselves and their abilities. In this PC world, more and more people judge themselves (falsely, in my opinion) based on what makes them feel good rather than their accomplishments. It’s not surprising that people worry about losing what they have if they lucked into having it to begin with.
Comment by DRJ — 8/7/2007 @ 8:22 pm
Let it go, guys, you’re giving him his fix and he’ll come back for more if you do.
Practice makes perfect. Remember, he is an addict and by not responding you deprive him of what he needs most. You could not possibly hit him back harder than by ignoring him.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 8:24 pm
Paul from FL,
I’ve said this before but it’s worth saying again and again. Thanks to you and your son for your service.
Comment by DRJ — 8/7/2007 @ 8:26 pm
I’m not the one who posted:
“This war is so horrible that poor Private Beauchamp started suffering from Pre Traumatic Stress Syndrome.”
Either our troops deserve combat pay for serving in Kuwait or they don’t.
Which is it?
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 8:31 pm
It’s getting anxious, isn’t it, guys? Watch it vacillate now as it feels compelled to keep trying but doesn’t want to let it show.
No feeding!
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 8:44 pm
I’m still trying. A little while a go New York City “banned” the n-word. Now some “ho” on the New York City Council wants to ban “ho” and “bitch. What do you guys think?
Comment by nk — 8/7/2007 @ 8:44 pm
nk,
It’s a symbolic ban with no legal force, just as well, and I’d write the whole thing off to posing. You’d think in a city like that the councillors would be able to find something useful to do.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 8:48 pm
HaHa Alphie
Did you notice that Congress just gave the Chimperor almost what he wanted on the NSA/FISA changes? Keep shredding that Constitution to keep this country safe boys and girls!
BTW Alphie, better add Okinawa to that list, Fat Jack Murtha has got big plans.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2007 @ 9:01 pm
Its a simple question, ras
Here’s your change to join the reality-based community…take the leap!
Do our troops deserve combat pay for serving in Kuwait or not?
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 9:03 pm
Somebody ought to tell that bitch that if she wants to ban the word bitch and ho, she is going to have to first run it past the Supremes, who are not likely to look too kindly on the government infringing on the right of free speech. Doesn’t a NY City Councilbitch have something better to do with her time than to shred our Constitution? Come on, Glen Greenwald. Look at this, objectively, and then tell us that hate crimes, free speech zones, political correctness, and this type of feel good BS isn’t more of an affront to the Constitution than anything President Bush has done.
I would usually end one of these rants with -
Fuckers.
Today, I will end it with bitchy ho bitch hoey bitchin’ bitching about ho’s an bitches.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 9:04 pm
Ha Ha Alphie
Did you know that New Orleans hasn’t been rebuilt because Bush wanted to leave the decisions to the locals and the DEMOCRATS down there once again can’t get their acts together?
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2007 @ 9:06 pm
daleyrocks,
Young man, don’t make me peer over my glasses at you. Does your mother let you feed the trolls at home? I should hope not!
Comment by schoolmarm ras — 8/7/2007 @ 9:07 pm
Yes they do, fuckhead. That doesn’t mean, and I suppose it is what you are driving at, that the lying fucker Beauchamp had experienced war and combat while in Kuwait, prior to his arrival in Iraq, where he claims to have been dehumanized.
alphie, you are a fucktard of the highest order. Maybe, just maybe, the military has a way of defining combat duty in such a manner that would encompass not only active war, but other threat levels that do not rise to the level of an overt shooting war. Nuance, I thought it was a friend of the Left.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 9:08 pm
Sorry ras and schoolmarm ras.
daleyrocks - They already have their narrative about Katrina, and no amount of facts will ever change that.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 9:09 pm
ras and JD - just playing. JD you know from experience that the only thing that will remove Alphie is our host.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2007 @ 9:12 pm
I like trolls, I confess. They more cumbersome and annoying they are, to me, signifies that your writing has a type of resonance that they feel must be combatted. As such, people like AJB, Lazarus, AF, and alphtard are compliments to Patterico.
That should not keep anyone from shouting down their vicious little lies, as being quiet allows their narratives the chance to take root.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 9:16 pm
Are you saying I’m lying about our troops receiving combat pay for serving in Kuwait, JD?
Y’all appear to have accused over one million of our troops of theft for taking money they didn’t deserve.
Support the troops!
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 9:22 pm
Hmm, the troll is beginning to squirm. Did I mention that I’ve done this before, on other sites, and that it hates when we talk about it like it’s not here. That’s ok to do, btw, as long as we never mention the substance of its rants. Fun, too.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 9:24 pm
I wonder if alphie thinks it is fun to beat up those strawmen in its head? Aggressive ignorance and flat out dishonesty is not a very becoming character trait, alphie.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 9:26 pm
Ha Ha Alphie
Did you know that He Man Harry Reid was a rabid anti-illegal immigrant, close the borders, hysteric until around 1994, when his wife and the casino idustry finally smacked him around?
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2007 @ 9:28 pm
I dunno what it thinks, JD, but I can see it’s prone to hissy fits. It sure is sounding desperate now.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 9:28 pm
What type of mental problem do you think alphie suffers from most?
Loneliness?
Comment by Christoph — 8/7/2007 @ 9:31 pm
ras - I think that you are correct in your assessment. IT needs attention, craves attention. However, a good spanking does not work, because that is precisely what it wants. A masochist of sorts.
The lying is tiresome, see #140, in relation to anything that I posted. I am plenty good at saying things poorly. I do not need its help in arguing positions that I never held.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 9:32 pm
JD,
I like trolls, I confess.
Not me, tho I do like to watch them squirm as the shunning takes hold. Never seen that before? Then play along; you’re in for a treat.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 9:32 pm
Chistoph -
Lack of a really sadist dominatrix.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 9:33 pm
On the rare occasions when it chooses to reveal an actual thought, as it did on the Lithwick thread, you can see the sickness of it’s mental process. Inflicting pain=good performance. BOOYA DEMS!!!
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2007 @ 9:33 pm
ras - given the track record of the trolls, lacking the direct attention, it would be my guess that IT will throw out increasingly dishonest and manipulated rhetoric, desperate in its attempts to get attention it so desperately craves.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 9:35 pm
A masochist of sorts.
All narcissists have a latent masochistic streak. That’s why they are so vested in maintaining an image and get so angry at anything that threatens it; the image is all they got cuz deep down they are ashamed of the reality.
Cognitive dissonance, as they say, leads to unfocused anger.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 9:35 pm
Did anyone throw malignant narcissism on the table. It’s a frequent malady of its type.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2007 @ 9:36 pm
ras - This one does not come across as particularly angry, just needy and dishonest.
But I get what you are saying.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 9:37 pm
Haha, hissy fit,
I’m not the chickenhawk accusing our troops of being a bunch of thieves.
The usual cloud of faith-based squid ink won’t hide your stain this time.
Not that it ever does.
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 9:37 pm
NK #129,
I’m giving up. Nice try, though.
Comment by DRJ — 8/7/2007 @ 9:39 pm
One problem with a lot of them is the inflated egos. They unfortunately believe they are special and can create dazzling arguments and clever misdirection. Usually it’s tough to put lipstick on a pig, but they nevertheless keep trying. Gotta give them that.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2007 @ 9:42 pm
So, ras, how best to respond to an outright lie? If a troll accuses you of something that is so divorced from reality, do you respond directly? Mock them? Make similar unsupported accusations against them?
Should I point out that it is hard to be considered a chickenhawk when one has already served? Should I point out that the only person calling soldiers thieves is IT? Should I question whether it enjoys buggering goats?
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 9:43 pm
On topic. Has anyone joined Dean Barnett’s dead pool for Franklin Foer over at Townhall? It’s filling up fast.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2007 @ 9:46 pm
Did anyone throw malignant narcissism on the table.
I might have; sometimes I do. I have a deucedly difficult time distinguishing it from psychopathy (Antisocial Personality Disorder), tho.
BTW, Note how it’s escalating its tone. Smell its fear!
Anyway, gotta run. See you guys tomorrow when we can again talk about trolls as if they’re not listening and hear them gnash their teeth for our amusement.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 9:46 pm
JD,
Last comment: At best, one can -if you really really gotta respond - talk to someone else on the group about it, just don’t acknowledge the troll or let it bother you.
‘night.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 9:48 pm
Lt. Col. Gian P. Gentile
Your war you stupid motherfuckers. Your war.
Comment by AF — 8/7/2007 @ 9:49 pm
Yes, because brutal slaying NEVER happened before.
We started it!
fucking retard.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/7/2007 @ 9:51 pm
Scott - It will be puppies running in the streets, and children flying kites in the parks once the imperial Amerikkkan troops leave.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 10:00 pm
Stupid motherfuckers. AF is is a unique position to understand, and identify, much better than any of us, what exactly consitutes a stupid motherfucker. Primarily, this is done through the use of his mirror.
Comment by JD — 8/7/2007 @ 10:02 pm
JD - How many of his own people did Saddam kill before we helped to depose him? Those rape rooms, mass graves, use of chemical weapons on his own people were all an indication of what a pleasant place Iraq was to live in under the benevolent dictatorship of Saddam, for Sunnis I guess.
Never mind that, look over here.
Comment by daleyrocks — 8/7/2007 @ 10:48 pm
So, daley,
If a bank has been robbed once, you’re free to rob it without fear of arrest?
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 11:05 pm
Look guys, it’s trying something new. Like we haven’t seen a setup line before.
Let’s ignore it. I like to watch it in withdrawal.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 11:21 pm
Haha, ras,
If you had any decent arguments to make…you’d make them.
The wingnuts seem to think the imaginary victims Saddam would have killed if he was still in power exist in some ghoulish bank account that they can draw on anytime an Iraqi dies during their occupation.
Trouble is, that account has been overdrawn for quite a while now.
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 11:30 pm
JD,
You’ll note that the troll shows its desperation by repeating a failed strategy from just a few comments ago, a sign of weakening.
If we can keep this up for even just a few days it gets even more interesting. Eventually, it will be openly thanking us.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 11:33 pm
I think ras is saying I’m in my “last throes!”
Is that you, Dick?
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 11:41 pm
Why do we put up with the pathological lying troll?
Comment by Christoph — 8/7/2007 @ 11:44 pm
Christoph,
There’s another kind???
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 11:49 pm
Christoph,
The pr0-war crowd currently stands at around 20-25% of Americans.
Y’all gotta start selling your war if you don’t want it to end next month.
Looks like you and ras have already cut and run from the debate.
Comment by alphie — 8/7/2007 @ 11:52 pm
Christoph,
Seriously now, help me in ignoring the troll.
I was quite serious earlier about trolls being addicted to attention. We can control the addict if we are firm.
It needs us; we don’t need it at all. Everything it has done so far confirms as much.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 11:52 pm
Interesting too how limited its repertoire. That’s good for us cuz it limits its adaptability.
Comment by ras — 8/7/2007 @ 11:54 pm
You can’t possibly get everyone to ignore him; you can’t even get Patterico to ignore him.
I think we should just ban him.
Comment by Christoph — 8/7/2007 @ 11:55 pm
Christoph,
I think we should just ban him.
That’d be fine, too, but play along w/me if you would. If I can get the whole group to do this, I expect we’ll all see quite the show and learn a lot about trolls - and by extension what really motivates the Loony Left and how to change them - in the process.
Either that or it’ll run away.
Comment by ras — 8/8/2007 @ 12:10 am
BTW,
You can’t possibly get everyone to ignore him
No? And you can’t possibly kill every malarial mosquito in the world either … can you?
Comment by ras — 8/8/2007 @ 12:14 am
I think you’re already giving everyone quite a show, ras.
Comment by alphie — 8/8/2007 @ 12:14 am
You suggest we use DDT on alphie? But DDT isn’t harmful to humans.
Wouldn’t it instead kill him… to ban him and force him to spout his trolling rhetoric at Yahoo! Answers?
Comment by Christoph — 8/8/2007 @ 12:22 am
Christoph,
See? Now it tries to flatter me to break the cycle. Ever seen it do that before?
We’ll see more variety, within its range, from it in the next while than we’ve ever seen before as it gets increasingly needy. It’ll take a few days to get the whole group in on this, but the general direction is clear.
Comment by ras — 8/8/2007 @ 12:25 am
You suggest we use DDT on alphie? But DDT isn’t harmful to humans.
Wouldn’t it instead kill him… to ban him and force him to spout his trolling rhetoric at Yahoo! Answers?
Comment by Christoph — 8/8/2007 @ 12:26 am
But DDT isn’t harmful to humans.
Exactly!
Comment by ras — 8/8/2007 @ 12:31 am
And for posterity, that link just above that I gave to Christoph is to an amazing story. Talk about taking on an “impossible” task … yet millions owe their lives to the grump who did. Worth a read.
Comment by ras — 8/8/2007 @ 12:35 am
ras: I’m wondering if the alph troll has stopped beating orphaned children or if A(l)F has stopped molesting them? Or is that the other way around? Maybe someone will come along and link it!
[Name edited by site owner to make it clear this is not Lord Nazh's comment. -- P]
Comment by Someone using Lord Nazh's name who is not Lord Nazh — 8/8/2007 @ 2:33 am
Sent an email to Pat about #183, wasn’t me that commented there. I don’t say things like that even about trolls.
Comment by Lord Nazh© — 8/8/2007 @ 3:44 am
Ah! UN employees! That explains everything!
Comment by Rob Crawford — 8/8/2007 @ 3:56 am
Woo Hoo! Alphieball!* Throw it over here!
* Like Calvinball, only more ridiculous
Comment by Pablo — 8/8/2007 @ 4:14 am
I think alphie should be banned for lying and saying he’s a conservative Republican on not only this, but several other blogs, and taking up every vindictive insincere far-left point he can and deflecting all reasonable argument with volume instead of debating substantive points.
But mostly for lying about his being a Republican for some sort of game.
You can talk to someone honest about who they are, but not someone lying to your face.
Night all… or morning for you.
Comment by Christoph — 8/8/2007 @ 4:26 am
Yeah, I agree Christoph…
It wouldn’t be nearly so bad if he would just admit his liberal-ness…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/8/2007 @ 4:55 am
Scott - No reason for IT to admit IT, as it is readily apparent. It could not point us to one conservative republican position it has ever held, and has produced volumes of leftard thinking. It makes it seem all the more pathetic in its Moby claims.
Comment by JD — 8/8/2007 @ 5:09 am
Miss Cleo - How goes that case of PRE traumatic stress disorder ?
Comment by JD — 8/8/2007 @ 5:38 am
First you READ the link,
THEN YOU COMPREHEND THE LINK
THEN, you comment.
Semanticleo.
Worst. Name. On. The. Internet.
Comment by N. O'Brain — 8/8/2007 @ 5:56 am
Like Calvinball, only more ridiculous, and in the passive voice.
Remember what I’ve warned you about, alpo.
Comment by N. O'Brain — 8/8/2007 @ 6:03 am
Sementicleo seems to be unable to grasp that “COMPREHEND THE LINK” part, on practically every topic.
I suggest, for starters, the Sementicleo call up the local grade school, and see if they have a primer titled “PREfixes-Those tricky little things in front of words”
Comment by JD — 8/8/2007 @ 8:27 am
Quote of the day:
Your war Pat. And if you or any of your pets think this is off topic you’re lying not just to the rest of us, but to yourselves.
Comment by AF — 8/8/2007 @ 10:57 am
AF,
Not only is it off-topic, there is nothing wrong with using security contractors as long as the law are followed. Go sit in the corner with alphie.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 8/8/2007 @ 11:10 am
Not to muddy the issue any, but Executive Outcomes was able to do with a mere fraction of the budget and manpower what the UN was utterly unable to do. In fact when they were forced to leave, and when the UN took over, everything went to shit.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 8/8/2007 @ 11:15 am
More thread hijacking attempts I see. Next we’ll see an essay from AF on the French Foreign Legion and the fact that German was its second most spoken language during the ’50’s and ’60’s.
Or not.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 8/8/2007 @ 11:17 am
What is this “Your war” crap that has started coming up? Is this the new left-wing talking point? For those who are American, how many elected officials from both parties supported the war when it started? Not just the beginning in Afghanistan, but supported the Iraq war as well. Almost all. Now the people who are against the war act like they were against it the whole time. What hypocritical bullshit artists they all are. People like alphie, AF, cleo, and others remind me of the little chihuahua who barks at the German Shepard from behind his own fence.
Nearly every country and intelligence service in the world is on record as believing that Iraq had WMD and was a threat to others. Not an “imminent” threat, which was specifically stated… but a threat. Both Democrats and Republicans are on record as saying that Saddam needed to be gone and was not complying with the U.N. resolutions. Same thing with all these other manufactured left-wing talking points that demagogue the Bush administration and Republicans in general. It’s all just so much methane in a tornado. This country and the world have real problems besides who’s going to be in the Oval Office come 2008. These idiots act like if only they can win an election, things will quickly become perfect. Well, how’s that “most ethical Congress ever” going?
This thread was about Beauchamp being a douchebag before he even got to Iraq. Nothing about contractors or mercenaries, nothing about WMD, nothing about Hurricane Katrina… nothing but that asshat who lied about war crimes in a national publication trying to earn his chops in the liberal media. I don’t care how much you try to spin this off into something else. It only demonstrates your own stupidity.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 8/8/2007 @ 11:37 am
Stashiu3,
A wise man taught me that “ignoring trollish behavior” is all that needs to be said.
As for the substance of the trolls’ args, see the previous discussion in this thread: it ain’t about what it’s about.
Comment by ras — 8/8/2007 @ 11:44 am
What’s the discussion about Robin? What are the issues, the stories of one soldier or the conduct of the war? You Say Beauchamp lies about his actions -but nothing’s been resolved yet- and that his lies tar others. So I’ve posted some others. So cut the fucking bullshit and talk policy. I’ve been called a liar here and no one’s even tried to fucking back it up.
Stashiu3, read the fucking article
Comment by AF — 8/8/2007 @ 11:45 am
Ignoring trollish behavior. This troll, like the last, yawn, already knows what a doof it is, so why encourage it?
[See how easy this is, guys!]
Comment by ras — 8/8/2007 @ 11:48 am
Stashiu3 - I think the “your war” crap means they are self-loathing noncitizens residing in this country. Is there a way to have their immigration status checked?
I was not aware that the definition of mercenary under international law included hiring employees to provide security