sullivan/”scott thomas”
Andrew Sullivan opines on the “Scott Thomas” controversy and, unsurprisingly, manages to get it all wrong:
Nothing has been disproved so far as I can tell. And the incident that seems to have created the fooferaw has actually been confirmed. Hewitt is unable to find a single factual inaccuracy and seems dismayed that a soldier might want to write about his own experiences in wartime. But why the hell not? And what does it matter if he has an agenda and an ambition to become a Writer? I can’t see the crime here – unless he fabricated something and we don’t know that. So why the craziness?
Partly, I think, new media hatred of TNR. Partly that Thomas is obviously a liberal Democrat who’s also a soldier. But 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.
While certainly right to suggest that nothing has been outright disproved, Sullivan skirts conveniently the fact that challenges to the story have been robust, and that any reasonable individual– regardless of political persuasion– must come to the conclusion that there is real reason to doubt the veracity of Thomas’ claims.
The “craziness” is, of course, a product of the fact that the story, if false, would be a reprehensible error on the part of a publication that has a real responsibility to ensure that its stories and editorials contain accurate information. That the story paints such a terrible picture of a whole swath of people only makes it more, not less important that TNR work hard to fact-check such an explosive article.
Sullivan later claims that the fiasco says more about “the hysterics than about TNR”– considering the real doubt cast on the account, one wonders of Sullivan simply hasn’t read most of the critiques of it, or whether he is being willfully obtuse.
I suspect the latter.
One has to work at being as consistently and gob-smackingly wrong as Sullivan.
JD
July 26, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Major John’s comment about Beauchamp sums it up quite nicely.
Comment by Major John on 7/26 @ 9:18 pm #
…
As for Beauchamp being pitiable – NO, NO, NO! A thousand times no. He #$%&* put the same uniform on as me, took the same $#%&ing oath that I did, and agreed he would live up to the same Army Values as I did:
Loyalty
Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. constitution, the Army, and other soldiers.
Be loyal to the nation and its heritage.
Duty
Fulfill your obligations.
Accept responsibility for your own actions and those entrusted to your care.
Find opportunities to improve oneself for the good of the group.
Respect
Rely upon the golden rule.
How we consider others reflects upon each of us, both personally and as a professional organization.
Selfless Service
Put the welfare of the nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own.
Selfless service leads to organizational teamwork and encompasses discipline, self-control and faith in the system.
Honor
Live up to all the Army values
Integrity
Do what is right, legally and morally.
Be willing to do what is right even when no one is looking.
It is our “moral compass” an inner voice.
Personal Courage
Our ability to face fear, danger, or adversity, both physical and moral courage.
He #$%&ing violated EVERY swinging one of ‘em. I wouldn;t piss in that guy’s ear if his brain was on fire. Foer can go get stuffed too – but he is what he is – a leftist journalist with an agenda – not someone who took an oath to be his nation’s war-guardian.
JD
July 26, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Speaking from experience, I would say wandering around alone in “Indian country” is not only frowned upon by your leaders, it’s also monumentally dumb. Backup is the name of the game and any reasonably trained Grunt makes sure he has it. Maybe Beauchamp preferred going it alone, thus encountered a lot of nasty things his buddies didn’t, without getting butt aerated, but I’m inclined to believew his fellow GI’s and think Beauchamp is dealing in hornswoggle.
WWII GUY
July 27, 2007 at 9:08 am
Several other milbloggers have raised similar concerns– and at the very least proved that, even if the story is somewhat true, Beauchamp deserves condemnation for his passive and implicit approval of such actions.
Me, I think its probably mostly fabricated– or at the very least highly exaggerated. Neither bodes well for Beauchamp or TNR.
curtisschweitzer
July 27, 2007 at 10:02 am
[...] like Andrew Sullivan, John Cole seems somewhat unhindered by the fact that Beauchamp’s accounts have been [...]
beauchamp’s revenge « empty rhetoric
August 2, 2007 at 12:49 pm