Foer: Beauchamp In Serious Jeopardy, Without Lifeline

What a crock ... and someone please ask Howie Kurtz, who is usually on top of these things, to ask about the fired TNR employee, whose only lifeline would appear to be un-employment insurance as far as TNR is concerned:

The magazine's editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is "part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer." Foer also said Beauchamp "has put himself in significant jeopardy" and "lost his lifeline to the rest of the world" because military officials have taken away his laptop, cellphone and e-mail privileges.

Sorry, Franklin, if they took away his M-16 and put him in the streets of Baghdad, you might have a point. Unfortunately, Beauchamp is an adult who volunteered for the Army - not having Internet access at some point just might fit into that mix at various points and for various reasons. Nice play of the viktum card, though.

Foer said the magazine is attempting to confirm every detail. "We are trying to be as deliberate and meticulous as we possibly can," he said. "We're not going to be rushed into making any sort of snap judgment."

Ed. Note: Rumor has it some publications actually do this before they publish and sometimes find themselves without much of a lifeline when they don't.

Obviously we are now going to have to wait for the Army to get to the bottom of this whole mess, something TNR evidently didn't feel was required prior to publication. But then, he did marry into the family. I guess those MFA degrees are over-rated, after all and aspiring writers should go to college to get their Mr or Mrs degree instead. It seems they carry some weight, at least at TNR.

Too bad Foer can't carry his share of the load, which he should have been able to do promptly and easily had he fact checked the pieces before they ran.

Comments

[Ali]

Oh, but they could care less about the morale and lives of boots on the ground.

Congrats, you've discovered another sister of the Shadow Party.

Is there anywhere socialism doesn't spread it's tenacles?

This whole incident... What incest, lack of morals and pure selfishness of all involved.

The investors should cut from the top.

[Fred Beloit]

From the link: "Beauchamp said last year that each morning he feels "retarded for joining the army," "a little more liberal than the day before" and "a tool for global corporations." ---------------------Well he seems to be right on all three counts (1) Given his views and politics he IS retarded for joining the Army. (2) He probably is, given his history and his wife's connection to TNR, a little more Liberal every day. (3) He IS a tool for a corporation, TNR.

[Fred Beloit]

This from The Nation: "On February 23, the 93-year-old New Republic announced it would shift from weekly to biweekly publication and that CanWest--Canada's largest media conglomerate--would henceforth own a majority share and would expect the magazine to turn a profit." -----------------Not merely a corporation, but a global corporation.

[bryce]

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

The whole thing has been kind of weird. Needless to say, Thomas does exist (he went public this morning on TNR's blog) and so far nobody has any evidence that he's made anything up. What's more, his point is, if anything, so common as to be almost banal. So why the hysteria? I guess Andrew Sullivan has the best take on it:

Mainly, it seems to me, the conservative blogosphere has taken such an almighty empirical beating this last year that they have an overwhelming psychic need to lash out at those still clinging to sanity on the war. This Scott Thomas story is a godsend for these people, a beautiful distraction from the reality they refuse to face.

It combines all the usual Weimar themes out there: treasonous MSM journalists, treasonous soldiers, stories of atrocities that undermine morale (regardless of whether they're true or not), and blanket ideological denial. We have to understand that some people still do not believe that the U.S. is torturing or has tortured detainees, still do not believe that torture or murder or rape occurred at Abu Ghraib, still believe that everyone at Gitmo is a dangerous terrorist captured by US forces, and still believe we're winning in Iraq.

Like a Kabuki story, though, you can already see how this is going to play out. Not only will Thomas's character be dragged savagely through the mud (Michelle Malkin is leading the charge over at her site), but eventually some small part of Thomas's account will turn out to be slightly exaggerated and the right will erupt in righteous fervor. They were right all along! Thomas did make up his stories! The left does hate the troops! The war is going swimmingly! At least, it would be if the MSM weren't undermining it at every turn.

Etc. etc. It's almost like we don't even have to bother with real life anymore.

[Fred Beloit]

bryce writes "Etc. etc. It's almost like we don't even have to bother with real life anymore." Thanks for demonstrating what this state of mind does to a Liberal's way of thinking, bryce.

[Fred Beloit]

You wrote this, bryce: "First Conservative sites went crazy. Thomas didn't really exist." Odd you should write this, bryce. The Conservative sites I read questioned whether there was really someone like this in the Army and questioned his existence, as depicted. I read not one that charged: "Thomas didn't really exist." You had better not go to too many more Kabuki performances, bryce. You are starting to see things in the shadows that are not there.

[tommy]

"The whole thing has been kind of weird. Needless to say, Thomas does exist (he went public this morning on TNR's blog) and so far nobody has any evidence that he's made anything up."

As the Weekly Standard noted and Ace pointed out, it may be of some interest that he started penning fictional screeds involving war crimes before being deployed to Iraq.

The link to Ace's post: http://minx.cc/?post=234958

[Fred Beloit]

You also wrote the "crazy" Conservative sites said this, bryce: "His stories were made up. The left hates the troops. Etc. etc." It may or may not turn out that the first charge (I'll reword it for truth: 'Were his stories made up?') above is true. But, if he made things up that were not true that would be perfectly OK with you. Liberals have a different standard of truth from the rest of us. They believe that made up stories demonstrate a higher truth if they show what would be true in the Liberals' feelings. As for the second charge, it certainly seems to me to be true. Liberals do hate the troops. Or did you miss the story, for example, of the demonstrators who burned and defecated on troop effigies?

[nowingker]

They're forever trying to relive their glory days of getting a stringer photographer fired for enhancing his picture and trying to forget about the infamous Jamil Hussein, the policeman who didn't exist, who little Michele went all the way to the ME to explose the horid conspiracy only to find out he does exist.

Wingerworld is making a fool of itself yet again, but Wingerworld doesn't function in reality, so they will always content that even though this soldier does exist, everything else they believe is true.

Same old same old.

We're winning in Iraq, Bush is a secret genius president, blah, blah, blah.

[tommy]

"forget about the infamous Jamil Hussein, the policeman who didn't exist, who little Michele went all the way to the ME to explose the horid conspiracy only to find out he does exist."

Jamil Hussein's story turned out to be inaccurate and, as usual, you leftists simply make shit up. Malkin at no point asserted that Hussein was nonexistent. Liberals don't seem to understand qualified statements. I think the left is trying to forget Dan Rather (at least when they aren't still ridiculously asserting the forged memos were the real McCoy).

[Fred Beloit]

Great link, tommy.

[anon]

Bryce didn't write anything above, he plagiarized. His "comments" are a direct cut-and-paste from a Kevin Drum blog entry yesterday (which itself quotes Andy Sullivan). Search on the phrase "empirical beating".

[Phoenix]

Nowinger,

You don't exist in either world so you should spare your criticisms accordingly.

"...a beautiful distraction from the reality they refuse to face."

(bryce)

Perhaps either you, Nowinger, or bryce could tell us what that reality is that we refuse to face. I'd be real interested as long as it doesn't involve a dissertation fueled by BDS.

[tommy]

Some of you might also be interested in learning that Beauchamp could be in trouble on an unrelated matter. He apparently violated operational security by posting information about future unit movements a while back.

Confederate Yankee has the details but the blog appears to be down at the moment.

[Pablo]

"Jamil Hussein" does NOT exist. jamil Hussein is a pseudonym for a guy who fervently insists he wasn't the AP's source. But like Santa Claus, if you believe in him enough, he's real. Although Santa leave real, tangible things in his wake.

As for STB, if all of his ability to communicate has been taken away by the mean old Army, how does Foer know it? Did he get a call, or an email? Couldn't he have just decided that it would be a good time to STFU?

[tommy]

'"Jamil Hussein" does NOT exist. jamil Hussein is a pseudonym for a guy who fervently insists he wasn't the AP's source. But like Santa Claus, if you believe in him enough, he's real. Although Santa leave real, tangible things in his wake.'

Yes, and the raises another good point: AP is supposed to have a policy against using pseudonyms. They violated their own policy and didn't provide readers with any notice. They still haven't provided any explanation regarding the matter.

[tommy]

CY is back up. Here is the post: http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/234984.php

[Hank]

It's Jamil Hussein all over again. Admit it. You were wrong. Whenever something doesn't fit with your narrow view, you grasp at straws and search for a sinister conspiracy to explain everything. The only sinister conspiracy is that you are being played for fools by the enablers of this dysfunctional administration. There has to be some point where you have to see beyond your self-constructed blinders and face the reality.

[nowingker]

A few of the realities you refuse to face:

1. Invading Iraq was a mistake.
2. We are not and cannot 'win' in Iraq.
3. Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress.
4. Warrentless spying is unconstitutional
5. Rumsfeld knew what was going on at Abu Grahib
6. War on terror detainees have been tortured.
7. Global warming is caused by humans.
8. The DOJ was turned into a political arm of the GOP
9. The Vice President is part of the executive branch
10. The country will pay for Bush's deficit in the future.

But, like the pathetic single hive mind that WingerWorld is, you will never admit any of this, just like you won't admit that the Jamil Hussein fiasco was something you nutters made up out of whole cloth that had no truth to it AT ALL.

[tommy]

"1. Invading Iraq was a mistake.
2. We are not and cannot 'win' in Iraq.
3. Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress.
..."

Why don't you save your general-purpose, off-topic screeds for Daily Kos?

[chris]

Why don't you save your general-purpose, off-topic screeds for Daily Kos?

Spoken like a true troop-supporting patriot. Put your head in the sand, hero!

[Fred Beloit]

Some things to consider:
1. We are beginning to win militarily and politically in Iraq.
2. The US Congrees, with the Dems as majority, is more unpopular than Bush, according to the only info we have on such matters, the polls. This Congress has done far less than the Iraqi Government during the same time period.
3. The President has the Constitutional authority to hire and fire US Attorneys for whatever reason he choses. Witness Clinton fired every one of them once for no apparent reason whatever.
4. The Left in America hates him so much they favor the enemy winning in Iraq in order to hurt Bush.
5. The Dem party is trying to muzzle free radio speech in the US.
6. Rumsfeld had no idea what a few E2 to E6ers were doing late at night in Abu Grahib. These people are now in prison, put there by the Army.
7. The earth warms up, the earth cools off. Always been that way. The cause is most likely the sun.
8. The Dems in Congress and the MSM have, since Bush assumed office, tried to find scandals where there were none, and failed.
9. Liberals, being first and foremost people ruled by their emotions, would prefer a monarchy or aristocracy in the US. Look at their worship of Moore, Gore and JFK, whose White House they idiotically confused with fictional Camelot.
10. The trolls who come here to present their feelings to us and the rest of the world are really mostly unimpressive. The simply repeat old charges that have been proven false, and they do so with no imagination nor creativity. Like ho hum.
11. Lefties think movie actors know a lot about world affairs, political science, and national policy.

[nowingker]

Why don't you save your general-purpose, off-topic screeds for Daily Kos?
----------------------

Ah, spoken like a true winger. If you read something besides the winger blogs what I said would be obvious. None of the reasons we invaded Iraq have stood the test of time, and in fact, just as the horrible liberals predicted, invading Iraq has made us less safe and has further destabilized the ME. Our own military say the 'surge' is a 10-1 shot and they also admit, freely and often that the solution in Iraq is a politcal one not a military one....yet none of this ever penetrates winger consciousness, you want more time, more dead civilians and a blackout on media coverage. It is obvious that the Attorney General has lied his ass off every time he has come before Congress, even the FBI director basically called him a liar.

But, back on topic, this is much ado about nothing, designed to muddy the water and enable you nuts to conclude that 'its all a lie' and keep your fantasy intact.

Swiftboating won't work anymore. You tried it with Obama and failed. You tried it with Pelosi and failed. And now you are trying it with some poor soldier who did nothing but write out his OWN EXPERIENCES, but because they dont' conform to your John Wayne view of life, you have to try and destroy him.

[tommy]

chris,

Well, for starters, I actually opposed the invasion of Iraq (unlike Hillary, Edwards and many other Democrats, for example). I don't believe that missions to bring democracy to Islamic countries will ever be successful and I'm more of a paleo-con than a neo-con. I'm also not much of a fan of the Bush administration.

That said, I still recognize most liberals as the sort of gullible morons who easily fall for the likes of Jesse MacBeth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth

[Fred Beloit]

"1. Nets Ignored Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Fret Over Bush's 8
The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignation of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the "controversy," fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 -- nearly two years after rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would "look at all the angles tonight," but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased: "New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign." CBS's Katie Couric declared that "the uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department" and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: "The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?" Brown soon asserted that "it's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today" -- an explosion fueled by the news media."
---------Note: quotation marks should be used when quoting, got it bryce?

[Fred Beloit]

The above quote is from: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070314.asp

[Fred Beloit]

Wing-a-ling write: "Our own military say the 'surge' is a 10-1 shot and they also admit, freely and often that the solution in Iraq is a politcal one not a military one...."
WE NEED A SOURCE FOR THIS PLEASE.

[Jeff]

"1. Invading Iraq was a mistake. Response: No, it wasn't. Hussein spent 12 years ingoring UN resolusions, stealing money in the food for oil scandal, and killing and torturing his own people. Granted, the war has not gone nearly as well as hoped, but it was not a mistake. Every country in the world thought Hussein has WMD including Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Italy, Saudi Arabia and Australia. Even Al Gore, based on the intelligence he saw when he was VP, admitted after the invasion of Iraq that was absolutely convinced that Hussein had the weapons. What would have happended if Hussein did have the weapons that everyone thought he had and either used them or sold them to a terrorist organization or a rogue state? Bush would have been crucified, and rightly so.
2. We are not and cannot 'win' in Iraq. You can never really win a war, but you can certainly lose a war. Kinda like southeast asia. After the Democrats forced a withdrawal and cut off funding, approxiamtely 3 million people were slaughtered.
3. Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress. I'm not a fan of Gonzale. He should just resign for political reasons. However, if you are referring to the firing of US attorneys, you might want to note that congress have absolutely no oversight over that. It is 100% the perogative of the president to fire US attorneys for any reason, including political reasons. It might not be good politices to do so, but its not illegal.
4. Warrentless spying is unconstitutional. I guess its okay if an airplane is blown up as long as their was no wiretapping. The so-called warrantless wiretapping program that was in place was only phone calls between a person in the US and a person overseas where the person overseas was suspected of having terrorist links. That was the extent of the program and senior Democratic leaders in congress were fully briefed on the program and had no objections until the NYT reported it.
5. Rumsfeld knew what was going on at Abu Grahib. Absolutely not. I'm sure some senior military people knew, but Rumsfeld did not. You really have no idea about chain of command. Do you think the SOD knows everything that happens in the field.
6. War on terror detainees have been tortured. So.
7. Global warming is caused by humans. Maybe, maybe not. There are just as many respected scientists that believe that global warming is cyclical. This decade is on pace to produce the fewest 90 plus days in the midwest in the last 100 years. Also, how do you explain the dust bowl of the 30s? Those are just a few things to consider.
8. The DOJ was turned into a political arm of the GOP. Really? Kinda like Janet Reno's DOJ for the Dems.
9. The Vice President is part of the executive branch. That I agree with.
10. The country will pay for Bush's deficit in the future. No, it won't. They said the same thing before Clinton was president. So, he slashed the military and intelligence budgets. I have a great idea. Let's completly scrap all social programs, including social security. It was intended to be a short term solution to the Depression. You have to be an idiot to rely exclusivly on SS for retirement. The federal government should have a very limited role. The only real significant budget item should be national defense.

[paul]

Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is "part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer."

I'm married to lawyer. Does that make me a lawyer?
HRC is married to an ex-President, so that must make her qualifed to be President.

Here's the deal-TNR used a person stationed in America at TNR to vouch for the works and writings of a non-journalist, stationed in Iraq. Since he had no reputation as a journalist that he needed to defend, the responsiblity for verification falls upon the 'professional' who gave them unfettered access to write for TNR.

It was TNR's responsiblity to verify the information. It would not be hard for them to give a detailed method of their verification, if they actually did any.

Foer's offering that someone on the staff(his wife) would vouch for him and his crediblity, doesn't cut it. The wanted a story more than they wanted the truth, and they can look back at Stephen Glass.

Partial truths don't cut it, either. A story with 50 truthful facts, but containing one lie, is fiction, based on reality. Reporting is not fiction, based on reality, it is truthful statements linked together.

[Pesky]

After the Democrats forced a withdrawal and cut off funding, approxiamtely 3 million people were slaughtered.

Come on now, you know Democrats don't really care about genocide or 3 million slaughtered. Pretending to care is their shtick, and even Obama isn't pretending.

[nowingker]

It is illegal to hire career DOJ staffers based on their political affiliations, which Bush's Monica admits she did.

It is also illegal for ANYONE to interfer with or impedge a DOJ investigation, it is alleged that the firings were for these reasons, as punishment for not bringing the cases that the WH wanted or for bringing cases that the WH did not want. There is no comparing Reagan and Clinton firing all the US attorneys when they took office, that is expected.

Since a number of the war on terror detainees have been released without charges and several have even been deemed INNOCENT, you should be upset that innocent people are/were being tortured, especially since torture is known to yield bad information.

The president is not above the law, he does not have powers to do whatever he wants, however he wants and to disregard the constitution and the law because he 'thinks' its the right thing or because he is doing it to 'protect' the American people.

No, there are not 'just as many respected scientists' who believe global warming is cyclical, there are about 3 'respected scientists' who think it is impossible to predict long term climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists who study the issue believe global warming is due to man. Look around you, wildfires burning out of control, a 30+ year drought in the West, glaciers all over the globe melting, coral reefs dying off, migration patterns changing. EVERYTHING the climate models have said would occur with global warming is occuring. The last time the climate changed this drastically it took 100,000 years, we're going to do it in 300 years. Don't say you weren't warned.

I am referring to the multiple lies that Gonzales told to Congress in his many appearances, only the lastest being his lie about not talking to Ashcroft about the wiretapping program while he was hospitalized which was directly contradicted by the FBI director as well as a former DOJ senior aide to Ashcroft.

We could not win in Vietnam for the same reasons we cannot win in Iraq, we are trying to fight someone else's war and we are trying to use the military to accomplish a political goal and a HUGE HUGE number of the population does not support us or our goals. That is a recipe for failure.

[paul]

"Democrats don't really care..."

Not an issue now, but when we get hit again by terrorists they'll have some splaining to do. I think the dems are whistling past the graveyard, figuring there won't be another attack, or hoping that if there is one, they can blame Bush.

What would dems do if they did manage a premature withdrawal form Iraq, and then we were later struck by terrorists 'that Bush has been creating in Iraq'? We went into Afghanistan to stop terrorists from growing and gathering, but now when the terrorists are supposedly growing and gathering in Iraq, we walk away?

The short term passion of the dems, is creating thousands of 'landmines' they they must avoid for the rest of US political hx. Hope they enjoy the power now, not like they will actually do anything to work aggressively against terrorists....

[paul]

"It is illegal to hire career DOJ staffers based on their political affiliations..."

I guess you have never read the constitution. take the time, and if you find the verse that supports your stupidity let us all know. Please don't ever use the word 'illegal' again, until you know what you are talking about.

[nowingker]

He sparked an internal Justice Department investigation this spring into whether former Gonzales aide Monica M. Goodling used a political litmus test to judge candidates for career prosecutor positions -- a potential violation of federal law.http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6443592

Get it, violation of federal law, when you violate the law you have done something ILLEGAL.

PS, not every 'law' is in the Constitution. Perhaps you need to brush up on your legal skills, dolt.

[Fred Beloit]

What is it that nowinker finds incomprehensible about the words potential, possible, may, could and many of the other hundreds of other qualifying words in common use?
"...- a potential violation of federal law..."

[paul]

"a potential violation of federal law..."

like Harry Reid's land deal? or his son's benefitting from his position?

I'll ask again, what 'specific law' was violated? I'm sure you would love to lecture me about the constitution, don't let your lack of knowledge stop you. since I'm sure you are well read, excluding the constitution, you'll have an answer in no time.

[nowingker]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003690183_webattorneys02.html

What do you want the actual federal statute? It isn't good enough for you that the Department of Justice itself is investigating the case to see if the LAW WAS BROKEN?

As I've said before, you guys get dumber by the second.

[Rich Casebolt]

nowingker ... I see that the Administration has not "disappeared" you yet.

So much for your worries over any "threat" to our civil liberties on the part of this Administration ... as opposed to my concerns about the threat to our civilization -- including its civil liberties -- that ignoring totalitarian regimes ... anytime, anywhere, anyplace ... produces in our time.

I have 2996 reasons to consider that threat real ... and all you have to do is take a look at what has happened in the stock market over the last couple of days, to see just how interconnected we are with the rest of the world ... and how a terrorist attack in ANY place where we interact with the rest of the world threatens the economic and political health of America.

Your reference to "Bush's Monica" reveals your true motivation ... a desire to "get even" for the stain on the credibility of "Leftists like you", left by Bill Clinton's attempt to obstruct justice ... a stain that led to what you probably think is the "theft" of your birthright-to-rule-and-keep-America-safe-from-a-hypothetical-theocracy in November 2000.

In other words, in your spiritualphobia, you are straining at every gnat regarding a hypothetical threat ... while swallowing whole the camels (or other beasts of burden) that the real threat is riding in on.

You are the embodiment of Romans 1:22.

Look it up.

[Fred Beloit]

"What do you want the actual federal statute?"
Yes, sure. This was only a newspaper report from May 2.

[paul]

"is investigating the case to see if the LAW WAS BROKEN?"

Again, I ask, what Law?

By history the president may hire and fire US attorneys as he chooses. You provide no specific law being broken.

Give me anything that you think falls in the same nebulous category of being illegal, but yet holds no law barring its action/commission.

Give me an action and I will give you the law which restricts it/punishes it, if it is a crime. If it is not defined, then it is not a crime.

What is the specific crime that is being charged here? Suppose the justice department indicts someone, what will they be indicted for?

[paul]

Here's why you are staring at a tree and missing the forest.

The ability of the president to hire and fire members of the executive branch, which seems to cover us attorneys, is absolute.

The nightmare scenario plays out thus if you challenge his right to do so...

take Rummy. He is hired/fire at the whim of the president. Challenge presdiential authority to hire and fire, whatever the reason, and Rummy(if he so chose,) could have challenged his firing in court. He could argue the reasons were 'political', which is the same reasoning you would find the firing of the US attorneys 'political' and thus illegal.

The president was advised, and there is no right to know what advice the president received. Congress does not have the authority to alter the constitution, which wisely forsaw that the President has absolute, unquestionable right to hire and fire as he chooses, to prevent challenging his authority.

Does congress have the right to tell him how to hire and fire his cabinet? Could you imagine a GOP Seante majority telling a dem president who his secretary of defense would be? Upon the granting of the right to appoint, he also has the right to fire-

any reason, no splaining.

[paul]

Whoever is giving you your 'legal reasoning' should be disbarred. I'm an independent, but on this one, the dems are really sticking their jaws out for the blow that will come.

The dems, if they proceed, are going to suffer a public 'pinning', that will be scored 9-0, not 6-0.

[Hank]

Paul, are you reciting the talking points from the White House Blogger call?

http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?title=white_house_reaches_out_to_bloggers

I hope you guys are at least getting paid good cash (Hannity Cash) to repeat the drivel.

[charles]

att: all,

nowinky got the entire thread off topic with his 12:14 post

he brought up a list of points that people have refuted to him again and again over a period of about the last year or better on many, many occassions.
people here, included links in their arguments, gave explanations for their reasoning, cited many sources, debated, disagreed etc, etc and what have you,ad nauseum,,,

he didn't hear you then, he's not interested in what you have to say now, and when he does the same thing tomorrow he will ignore you then as well, no matter the subject under discussion
all he does is beat the same tired horse over and over again

*--it is a tactic--*

there is rarely if ever a post on here that stays on topic because of this

THAT'S his mission, it's your mission to ignore it and stay on topic

dan, i'm NOT saying to ban him, but if you're around in the comments when he does this you should delete his post as an experiment (leave his on topic stuff up, of course) - i think it would be quite interesting to see the outcome

and winky, before you start whining about "freedom of speech, stifling debate, etc" keep in mind there is no physical restiction on cyberspace, the internet is huge - - start your own damn blog

[wooga]

1. The Iraq war was not 'illegal,' as no controlling law was violated. Hussein's failure to comply with the documentation requirements set forth by the cease fire in the FIRST gulf war nullified the cease fire, thereby resuming hostilities. Everything else (like actual possession of WMDs) is superfluous. Bush could have said we were also invading to defeat an army of Oompa Loompas - the war would still be legal.
2. Warrantless spying is NOT per se unconstitutional. Read the fourth amendment. Searches need only be 'reasonable.' Warrants are a different issue. The wiretapping at issue may have violated FISA, but that is a statute. As a statute is not allowed to violate the constitution, the question becomes whether the particular FISA rules are even constitutional themselves (separation of powers). FISA is probably valid, and probably blocks the warrantless wiretaps - but that is NOT the same thing as "unconstitutional."
3. Separation of powers gives the president essentially arbitrary control over the executive branch. He can fire the attorneys at will. The problem here is not the firing itself, but rather Gonzo's testimony - under oath - concerning the firing. I have no idea why he perjured himself (IMO) by testifying that the firing was NOT political, as it seems to have been.

[bloodrage bob]

ahhhh, freedom. can't help but notice 'liberal political tactics 101' at work here in the comments section of reihl.

the post was about s.t. beauchamp asswad's little stories coming unraveled. being shown as the lies they are. just like jamil hussein. just like jessie mcbeath. just like fauxphotography. just like haditha. just like all the other lies the left has thrown out & clinged to ferociously, until they were proven false.

and now beauchamp. hell, just track the 40+ comments on this post. they start off defending beauchamp; attacking his detractors. 'here's a soldier telling truth the chickenhawks don't want to hear!'. but soon, as they realize beauchamp's little web of lies is disintegrating, is beyond hope of resuscitation...they bravely change the subject.

NOW, in the last 20 or so posts, NOW the topic most important to the liberals *isn't* beauchamp and his lies....oh, no. what's important NOW is .... uh .... is whetherornotgonzalezisabadguy! and bushisareallyawfulperson! etc etc.

ok, show of hands: who DIDN'T see that coming?

[Purple Avenger]

"I don't believe that missions to bring democracy to Islamic countries will ever be successful"

Pretty racist remark there -- since there do exist democratic Islamic countries.

[Phoenix]

I can't let Nowinger take a beating for something I asked. He answered in a short list exactly what I asked. You have to give him credit for responding without being an ass like you-know-who and his one-liners. We might not agree with him, but he's thorough and unfailingly answers each question/statement. -"that reality we refuse to face" - is what got me to ask the question. Hell of a discussion followed.......

"Perhaps either you, Nowinger, or bryce could tell us what that reality is that we refuse to face. I'd be real interested as long as it doesn't involve a dissertation fueled by BDS.

Posted by: Phoenix | Friday, July 27, 2007 at 11:38 AM"

[paul]

Back on topic?

ok...liberal democrat enlists in army in the hopes of advancing writing career, by 'reporting' on other poeple suffering and the depravity of man.

not much different from the Kos' 'mercenary'...make money off of other people's suffering. This is actually the driving force behind the current democratic party. Suffering equals votes-money, fame. Hate the suffering, love the suffering.

[Tom Hilton]

11. Lefties think movie actors know a lot about world affairs, political science, and national policy.

That must be why we nominated one for president, and may well nominate another.

Oh, wait...