Another angle on the Beauchamp Saga — Courtesy of Michael Yon
Posted by WLS
I’m putting this in a new post because I don’t want it to get lost at the end of the comments to Patterico’s post from last night.
NRO has an article from Michael Yon’s latest dispatch from Iraq, and it involves Yon’s fortuitous presence with Beauchamp’s unit yesterday where he had an encounter with Beauchamp’s battalion commander.
One thing I was struck by in the transcript of Beauchamp’s Sept. 7 telephone conversation was that he seemed to have become completely devoted to the military coda of being dedicated to the mission of your unit and the soldiers with whom you serve. He repeated over and over that he wanted to only concern himself with his job, doing his job, and worrying about the man on each side of him, and had no concern about trying to facilitate a resolution of the controversy surrounding his articles no matter how that might dissappoint TNR and his wife.
Here’s part of what Yon got from his conversation with Beauchamp’s former company commander:
I was at a reconciliation meeting between Sunni and Shia in the West Rashid district of Baghdad on 24 October, and it happened by complete coincidence that I was with Beauchamp’s battalion. In fact, I was with his old company commander for much of the day, although I had no idea for most of it that I was with Beauchamp’s old company commander.
At the reconciliation meeting, Beauchamp’s battalion commander, LTC George Glaze, politely introduced himself and asked who I wrote for. When I replied that I just have a little blog, the word caught his ears and he mentioned Beauchamp, who I acknowledged having heard something about. LTC Glaze seemed protective of Beauchamp, despite how the young soldier had maligned his fellow soldiers. In fact, the commander said Beauchamp, having learned his lesson, was given the chance to leave or stay.
It can be pretty tough over here. The soldiers in Beauchamp’s unit have seen a lot of combat. Often times soldiers are working in long stretches of urban guerrilla combat dogged by fatigue and sleep deprivation. This is likely one of the most stressful jobs in the world, especially when millions of people are screaming at you for failures that happened three years or more ago, and for decisions to invade Iraq that were made when you were still a teenager. Just as bad is the silence from the untold millions who have already written off your effort as hopeless. Add that to the fact that buddies are getting killed in front of you. (More than 70 killed in Beauchamp’s brigade.) I see what these young men and women go through, and the extraordinary professionalism they nearly always manage to exude awes me on a daily basis.
Lapses of judgment are bound to happen, and accountability is critical, but that’s not the same thing as pulling out the hanging rope every time a soldier makes a mistake.
Beauchamp is young; under pressure he made a dumb mistake. In fact, he has not always been an ideal soldier. But to his credit, the young soldier decided to stay, and he is serving tonight in a dangerous part of Baghdad. He might well be seriously injured or killed here, and he knows it. He could have quit, but he did not. He faced his peers. I can only imagine the cold shoulders, and worse, he must have gotten. He could have left the unit, but LTC Glaze told me that Beauchamp wanted to stay and make it right. Whatever price he has to pay, he is paying it.
Though Beauchamp is close, I’m not going to spend half a day tracking him down when just this morning I woke to rockets launching from nearby and landing on an American base. Who has time to skin Beauchamp? We need him on his post and focused.
As for The New Republic, some on the staff may feel like they’ve been hounded and treed, but it’s hard to feel the same sympathy for a group of cowards who won’t ’fess up and can’t face the scorn of American combat soldiers who were injured by their collective lapse of judgment. It’s up to their readers to decide the ultimate fate.
The New Republic treed like a bandit . . . personally, I think they would make a nice Daniel Boone hat.
It sounds like Beauchamp might regret the comments he made about soldiers in a war prior to actually being a soldier in a war. Now that he has served several months in a front line unit, where he’s responsible for the lives of the soldiers around him and they’re responsible for him, falsely impugning their integrity in order to be the next Hemingway doesn’t seem like such a wise thing to have done.
So, as Yon says, the country owes a debt of gratitude to Thomas Scott Beauchamp for what he is doing now, and a measure of foregiveness for what he did earlier.
And TNR’s editors deserve a pink slip.
Very nice WLS. Thanks for posting this. Lt Col Glaze sounds like a great commander and I’m sure his troops are glad to have him.
TNR should be ashamed and those who were overly critical to Beauchamp on a personal level have a little crow to eat as well.
Support the troops — all of them.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/25/2007 @ 12:47 pmWLS, thanks for posting this in a new thread. I would have put this in a new one myself, but I don’t have posting privileges.
Paul (146bba) — 10/25/2007 @ 1:06 pmNo, we don’t. Hopefully, by the end of his tour, he will be mature enough to give an unequivocal apology to his fellow soldiers.
dave (095afa) — 10/25/2007 @ 1:44 pmMight Beauchamp get “there” the old fashioned way?
Somehow, it reminds me of:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0102004/
jim2 (c4f0ac) — 10/25/2007 @ 2:20 pmDave,
there is a difference between analyzing and criticizing versus slurring. If you are not in the latter then my comment was not directed at you.
voiceofreason (231025) — 10/25/2007 @ 2:42 pmAs usual VORE demonstrates how trolls think. Guilt has nothing to do with actions. Responsibility is just not essential,. Accountibility doesn’t count more than intentions. Intentions are valid as long as they advance one’s personal agenda. Agenda is all important as long as it is anti American.
The fact that this child has learned what it means to be a soldier reflects well on him now, his past actions are what he has to live down.
Semms like VORE loves eating crow.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 10/25/2007 @ 2:43 pmWho did the slurring, VOR? Most would suggest that he passed along fables and gross exaggerations as the truth, thus slurring all of the people around him.
He is responsible for his actions.
Sounds like he has learned a lesson. I doubt it changes his views much, but at least he appears to be doing the right thing.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/25/2007 @ 2:51 pmHaha,
…he appears to be doing the right thing
Successful re-education, comrade?
High fves all around.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/25/2007 @ 2:52 pmWhat a prick.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/25/2007 @ 2:53 pmJD,
voiceofreason (231025) — 10/25/2007 @ 2:54 pmI have seen plenty of comments in a couple of sites where his patriotism is questioned, sometimes he is labeled as a traitor.
Did I say he didn’t slur others? But his actions seem to indicate he wants to make up for it and move on. And more importantly his leadership believes his sincerity. What is wrong with giving him the chance to do that?
If re-education means learning about concepts like truth, honesty, integrity, duty, honor, country, etc … than he appears to be successfully re-education.
How about we send you off to one of those camps, alphtard.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/25/2007 @ 2:54 pmI never said he should not have a chance to rehabilitate himself, VOR.
His patriotism should have been questioned. He cannot simply erase what he did. He can continue to prove that he has learned from it. He will have this hanging around his neck for a long time.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/25/2007 @ 2:56 pm“His patriotism should have been questioned.”
On this we won’t agree.
Forgiveness seems to be in short supply for someone willing to put their life on the line for their country even after screwing up in a big way.
Too bad.
voiceofreason (231025) — 10/25/2007 @ 2:59 pmI believe DRJ was saying Southerners are still paying the price for their patriotic “hiccup” in a recent thread.
Looks like you agree with that punishment, JD?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/25/2007 @ 3:08 pmVOR – I commend him for staying with his unit. But he does not get a free pass for what he has done. His patriotism was questioned, note the past tense VOR. He is starting to do the right things, which will go a long way towards forgiving him if he continues. Or, is it racist of me to believe this?
JD (e88f7b) — 10/25/2007 @ 3:23 pmI fart in your general direction, alphtard.
JD (e88f7b) — 10/25/2007 @ 3:23 pmJD,
Call it a quirk but even with 26 years of service behind me, I refuse to question a fellow soldier’s patriotism. The term is used far too lightly and loosely in my opinion.
voiceofreason (231025) — 10/25/2007 @ 3:30 pmYa know, I tell myself to ignore you and ignore threads you hijack. Eventually you’ll become such a presence here I’ll assume you’re shitting in every thread and just stop visiting.
But this comment deserves recognition. You are a miserable little shit. You deserve to get your fucking lights punched out by the first serviceman that runs across you in person.
Just Passing Through (d7a06d) — 10/25/2007 @ 3:42 pmAgree. There are plenty of people whose patriotism has taken a back seat to personal agendas but it’s a lot rarer in the service and ex-service than it is outside. Beauchamp is/was a schemer but in my experience the service was full of them. Plenty of them would screw over their units for the meanest of motives but never lacked for love and support of country. The service has a way of focusing patriotism despite the individual’s other foibles. I’ll give Beauchamp the benefit of assuming that’s true in his case.
Just Passing Through (d7a06d) — 10/25/2007 @ 3:49 pmJPT – Did not Beauchamp place his patriotism in the back seat to his desire to be the next Hemingway?
JD (e88f7b) — 10/25/2007 @ 4:33 pmNice, JPT,
Because we all know mindless violence is the best logic, right?
At the personal and the national level.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/25/2007 @ 4:37 pmJust Passing Through #18,
I agree with you. From now on alphie’s first comment on a thread will be the last comment on that thread as far as I’m concerned.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/25/2007 @ 4:39 pmI’m a bit suspicious of entirely positive and mission-admiring milblogs opposite no deployed malcontents seeking a forum. How are they vetted? Is there a rule book on ventilating frustrations in light of Beauchamp?
steve (0e1a2e) — 10/25/2007 @ 4:57 pmJust Passing Through #18,
So do I. Staunch Brayer used to be funny, but now he’s so over the top it’s tiresome.
Paul (f4626d) — 10/25/2007 @ 4:58 pmIs there a rule book on ventilating frustrations in light of Beauchamp?
Steve, there’s a difference in venting frustrations and writing lies about the guys who have your back in a war zone.
Paul (f4626d) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:02 pmalphie,
I’m going to give you one last chance. This forum is for people who discuss issues seriously, not for people to annoy others. If you can’t discuss matters in a way that adds something to the site, then we’ll take a little vacation from you, and see how it works out.
Here’s what I want you to respond to.
The TNR editors said that they couldn’t continue to defend the piece unless Beauchamp backed up the piece. They didn’t say: we can stand by the piece if you say nothing, and we can argue that you’re being pressured by the military. They said: if you don’t stand by the piece, we can’t either.
They said that. Nobody made them say it.
Beauchamp didn’t stand by the piece.
That’s what this conversation shows.
Why shouldn’t that present a big problem for TNR editors, given what they said themselves?
No evasions or cute annoying rhetorical tricks. Answer the question or we’ll take at least a one-week vacation from you.
Your choice, entirely.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:06 pmDo you have a link to exactly what the TNR editors said, patterico?
And is there a time limit for a when they should print a statement in their mag?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:11 pmYou were given the links last night.
Which makes me think this is a stalling tactic.
http://hotair.cachefly.net/mm/stb1.pdf
http://hotair.cachefly.net/mm/stb2.pdf
You tell me what the time limit should be. No questions throwing it back in my lap. Analyze the circumstances and make an argument that the editors didn’t need to tell anyone about their conversation with Beauchamp for as long as they kept it quiet.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:18 pmI’ll stike with Michael Yon on the point; if he was offered an option to leave or stay and contribute to the surge; and he’s staying I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he had some misimpressions of the war; seeing his environment and all; it’s not hard to imagine.
narciso (d671ab) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:25 pmWould it have been better to publicly recant; probably but beggars can’ be choosers. Damn sight
better than most the McClatchy staff including newby Bobby Calvan; who do the worst to play up any insurgent propaganda
I would call that an evasion since he clearly read the transcripts from the previous thread. Furthermore, since Foer has seen fit to have time to give an interview expressing his outrage that the Army would leak the transcripts (an accusation without evidence, much like everything else we’ve seen from TNR), he certainly had time to at least post something on their website. To this point, there has been complete silence there, and in the magazine itself. The question of a time-limit is just another attempt to distract and evade.
Stashiu3 (992297) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:27 pmHaha,
I’m not trying to stall, I just can’t find what the TNR editors said about the Beauchamp affair. There’s nothing on TNR at all.
I did find this:
Although the article was rigorously edited and fact-checked before it was published, we have decided to go back and, to the extent possible, re-report every detail. This process takes considerable time, as the primary subjects are on another continent, with intermittent access to phones and email. Thus far we’ve found nothing to disprove the facts in the article; we will release the full results of our search when it is completed.
It’s my understanding that TNR is still awaiting some documents from the Army they requested under the freedom of information act concerning the Army’s own Beauchamp investigation.
I expect they’ll have to say something when their investigation is complete.
Until then, I don’t think they need to say anything.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:28 pmAlphie — I’m sure someone will beat me to this since I’m going to type it out, but here is what TNR said:
“Scoblic: I think Scott, what this is, you know, is that we’re going to have to come out to say that … because, you know, you’re not going to talk to us anymore about the piece we just can’t, in good conscience, continue to defend it….”
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:41 pmStaunch Brayer’s deception is manifest here, since he knows that Patterico is talking about the transcripts linked here and in previous threads. It isn’t like we’ve ever caught Al Queda Alphie in a serious discussion.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:43 pmNot in my opinion. His loyalty to his comrades and unit, yes. Took a back seat. Not his loyalty to his country. Personal aggrandizement in a manner that raised everyone’s back who saw it being used the way it was. Anti-Americanisn by an American citizen, no.
Just Passing Through (d7a06d) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:43 pmAnd again, this time from Foer:
“Foer: Basically, we need some sort of sign in good faith on your part that would be the bare minimum at this point to prevent us from fully retracting.”
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:45 pmAny person well versed in the FoIA would know that material gathered during a military investigation is not subject to release from a FoIA request.
STB has to release it. He was told, during the phone conversation, that he could release it.
This is one of those cases where it would not be a case of “hurry up and wait”. If he signed those papers, withing a week or two they would be on the desk of someone at TNR.
The fact that TNR seems to suggest they don’t have them means, in that case, one of two things, logically.
1- STB has not released them. He’s decided to let it go, and try and put it behind him. If that’s the case, and much as I loath him, then I hope he’s successful.
2- He has released them, TNR doesn’t like what they say, and are pretending they don’t have them.
Either case is equally likely in my eyes.
Now I feel like I should explain my hope that he’s successful in putting this behind him.
The investigation, which I frankly have no reason to doubt, says he lied in his Diary. Lied about his fellow soldiers. Lied hard.
Sure, everyone lies, but his were monumental, and disgraced not only his unit, but the uniform in general.
NOT tossing him into Leavenworth is a decision I won’t likely ever be able to understand. Were I his CO, he’d be breaking rocks right now.
BUT, if he is sincere in wanting to just walk away from all of this, and let it lay as a “mistake” (to put it lightly), then so be it, and I hope he can.
Why do I have no reason to not believe the Army’s investigation? Because if it had happened – any of it – they would have looked better for publicly and rapidly coming down on the offending parties like the vengeful hammer of God than if it should come to light they hid something.
Like I’ve said before, we can’t keep crap secret at the NSA anymore. To think the Army could keep it quiet is just foolish.
And if – IF – STB is “holding back” because the Army is listening, and as soon as he’s “out” of the Army goes and says “Oh, no… It all happened, it’s all true”, he’ll have made the second worst mistake of his life.
The penalties for lying to investigators is MILES worse than what he’d have faced otherwise. By signing his name to the official statements, he’s married to it for life. They have almost 20 years of IRR time to grab his re-recanting butt and slap him in irons.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:47 pmAnd Alphie, I would call the complete and total purging of anything involving STB from their website to be a form of retraction.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:48 pmAnd, finally, alphie, try to explain Foer’s motivation for the following:
“Foer: You owe it uh to us uh … you owe it to us to bacially kind of report on ourselves and be able to put out whatever next thing … I think you ought to basically talk to us, and LET US CONTROL THE WAY THIS STORY PROCEEDS. I think that’s the least you could do for us. I think it would be further evidence, further sign to us that you’re just sticking it to us if you went and talked to these other guys before we could put anything out further.”
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:49 pmIn the immortal words of Kevin Bacon as Captain Jack Ross — “Alphie is gone. There is no more Alphie.”
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:51 pmPeople are responsible for what they say and do you little prick. They are responsible for the consequences. Whether it’s some primitive Mahdi wannabe now squatting in a cave in Pakistan blaming the US for the world of hurt he brought down on his people’s head or some pissant little shit like you. So fuck you and fuck your poor little jihadi, poor little alphie, victims of mindless violence, bullshit.
Just Passing Through (d7a06d) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:53 pmTNR is a magazine, WLS.
Their website is just a side business.
I think they’ll put any official report in the mag.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:54 pmAplhie, I believe you have questions from Patterico to answer.
Might wanna get on that, bubba.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/25/2007 @ 5:55 pmI believe I did answer the question, Scott.
TNR should publish a full report on this matter when their investigation of it is complete.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:06 pmOh for the love of…
you didn’t even read my comment, did you.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:11 pmThat’s not what Scoblic and Foer said — they said that if Beauchamp couldn’t confirm his article or wasn’t willing to talk to them, then they would have to retract.
Beauchamp didn’t confirm the article, and he said repeatedly he was done talking to them and any other media.
But they didn’t retract.
Its now been 7 weeks since the telephone conversation. I think TNR is publised every other week.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:12 pmI started typing that alphie’s next answer would be that he thought he had already answered Patterico’s question. Good thing I checked before posting. No Redeeming Social Value is the best that can be said about him… and one week won’t teach him anything. He’s Baghdad Bob of Patterico’s Pontifications.
Stashiu3 (992297) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:14 pmBaghdad Alphie — yep, that’s his new name.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:26 pmhe’s just begging for the ban, give it to him.
chas (4661dd) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:32 pmThe question wasn’t, “Alpo, do you think that The New Republic will eventually publish the results of its own investigation?”
Beauchamp was told, with no room for misunderstand, that if he did not stand by the stories TNR would have to stop defending them as well. Beauchamp refused to stand by them.
The question Patterico asked was, does that present a problem for the TNR narrative that they don’t have the information they need for an investigation? As a result of Army stonewalling? The author of the pieces, when directly asked by Foer and Scoblic to say they were accurate, did not do so. Doesn’t that discredit the TNR’s explanation as to why, two months later, they haven’t finished their investigation?
It’s a shame that alpo won’t be with us much longer.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:39 pmI am sure that the posters who have served all remember young troops who were s**tbirds. One of two things would happen: they remained s**tbirds and had a short & unhappy time in the military, or they took their punishment (along with advice from various NCO’s), thought about their situation, what they wanted & how they wanted to be remembered and straightened out. Some of my senior NCO’s (especially the best 1st Sergeant I ever had) told me how they had a bad start in the Army, took stock of themselves, made amends and made something of themselves.
Mr Chips (1b9d8f) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:44 pmMaybe STB is making this turnaround. Based on what we hear from some of the milbloggers, he did not take the easy way out of his situation (leave). Maybe he realized that Foer & TNR do not have his interests at heart, that maybe the Army will give him a chance to do right. I hope he is serious about redemption. I hope he becomes a better person, a better man in all aspects of life due to these experiences.
I now teach high school. When dealing with some of my more “difficult” students, I will quietly apprise them of where they are heading and offer them a hand up, a chance to redeem themselves. Some take it, some do not. It is the offer that is important. Redemption must be earned.
Since Foer has been caught in deception, as he pretended well after the teleconference that we now have a transcript for, that TNR had not been able to talk to Beauchamp, we have no reason to trust anything that Foer tells us.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:48 pmOr, maybe he’s afraid to go home and face Elle and the responsibilities of his impending fatherhood?
dave (d5d8d0) — 10/25/2007 @ 6:52 pmI even remember being one until a squared-away NCO set me straight. I would say Beauchamp’s leadership has the best idea of how salvageable he is and we should let them do their job. The story now is TNR.
Stashiu3 (992297) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:17 pmJPT and Mr Chips’ post show quite a bit of insight into Beauchamp’s decision to stay, but I think the crux is here in Yon’s post:
From guys that he respected, and whose respect and approval he thinks are worth having.
I’ve seen some pretty amazing changes in behavior from some boys I thought were likely prison bait, so his epiphany on the road from Baghdad may be entirely sincere and life changing.
It would certainly explain why he’s decided not to succumb to the blandishments of TNR’s editorial staff to support their untenable position.
Oh, and alphievictim?
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 10/25/2007 @ 7:21 pmWell, as a sometime writer I can say this for Beauchamp’s future prospects: it’s a very uplifting experience to know that you’ve already written the stupidest thing you possibly could. You can get through a lot of writer’s block that way. Also, he could pitch a book deal as “the way it REALLY was”.
Michael Llaneza (75b276) — 10/26/2007 @ 12:46 amMy question is alphie salvagable? Short of serving in frontline unit like Beauchamp did, I don’t think alphie will ever get it.
My personal opinion is the whole MSM gets a black eye for covering for TNR’s basic journalistic malpractice.
PCD (b47ba5) — 10/26/2007 @ 5:38 amI’m sure he’d make a fine compost…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/26/2007 @ 5:48 amGee VOR 26 years of military service. That’s commendable. Where did you serve and what branch of the military? What is your MOR/classification if not army?
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 10/26/2007 @ 10:37 amThomas,
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/26/2007 @ 10:52 amThanks. I was in the Air Force the whole time. I spent the first 17 years as a radio operator and the last 9 years as a computer security specialist. I enlisted six months after Reagan was sworn in the first time and retired this year.
Thomas,
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/26/2007 @ 10:54 amI missed the where question. I was in Japan, Nebraska and Louisiana over five different assignments.
You poor bastard… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/26/2007 @ 11:03 amScott,
LOL. One of the assignments there had me working about 30 miles from the base at a communications site sitting in the middle of six hundred acres of soybeans and corn. The single guys and gals actually had to live on site so it could have been worse for me. Was sure glad to leave though!
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/26/2007 @ 11:14 amVORE:
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 10/26/2007 @ 1:44 pmThats pretty good assignment range but I assume you were at several bases at each of these locations and not just five? Are you a member of Wild Geese?
Thomas,
voiceofreason (27592b) — 10/26/2007 @ 2:16 pmI was at several different units but at the same bases. I went Japan,Ne, Japan, Ne and La for the last. But I was in about 12 different units. I’m not familiar with the Wild Geese. Thankfully I was on the ground and not a flyer. The TDY tempo for those guys and gals is extremely tough on families.
Who sez TNR is dead?
It seems ALL Foer wanted was a chance to do his own investigation. And, it’s here that the US Army REFUSED.
Yes, Foer was told that Beauchamp recanted.
Even Michael Yon has been involved, cleaning up Beauchamp’s reputation, now. Without really being given access to an interview.
Just a PR machine.
What if the Army can get caught out “eventually?” Foer’s major crime was in not towing the US Army line “that it was over.”
Instead?
Well, did you know journalists, (good, bad, and indifferent), have in past wars had front line access? Do you know why? The US Constitution provides this.
And, the US Army, on the Beauchamp saga, decided to take this away. They’ve invented a sausage machine that churns out “their version.” And, you think this is gonna go over great with Americans?
What if it only sells to one segment of the market?
What if Hillary wins? And, gets to work with a democratic majority in Congress?
CAVEAT! I do not foretell events! Anything can happen, ahead. I mean, couldn’t Hillary pick her husband to be her veep? (No. I think there’s writing held within the US Constitution, that would prevent such malarky.)
Foer hasn’t been fired, though.
And, the rest of the media? You hear them firing shots?
What if there’s a BIG story underlying Beauchamp? Including the fact that dogs get run over all the time; not just in Baghdad. And, being in Irak isn’t producing much in America; except Baghdad Bob, who should have been given his own show.
$3-trillion dollars. To take off Saddam’s head? It costs so much? While the Saud’s just gave Laura Bush her own burka. ANd, she slipped this on! So now you’ve seen Condit, too, “all dressed up.” And, ya know what? A majority of Americans remain unimpressed … Even if this was a one day event. And, it was Halloween.
The margins for victory, in politics, is slim. Our system awards the whole pie, when you can eek out a smidgen above 50%. Heck, even when Americans, by and large, are voting, AND holding their noses. While military victories are different. You really don’t gain much when all you own is the PR machinery.
Oh, the line of “getting disgusted.” Where would you draw that?
And, why not worry? I don’t see good stuff out there as the pandering for the republican nomination looks so weird. And, too many people, now, can recognize Ron Paul. While they probably don’t know Duncan, Brownback, Tancredo, or a good portion of the other clowns; from a hole in the wall.
Whatever. All this commotion has lots of people paying attention, though.
Carol Herman (9fd52a) — 10/27/2007 @ 10:10 am