Classical Values :: Dogs were tortured, so the war is immoral?

August 03, 2007

Dogs were tortured, so the war is immoral?

I have spent several hours trying to get caught up with the Scott Thomas Beauchamp affair, and had concluded that he either lied or told the truth. Now it appears he was lying. Anyway, the whole thing is one of the reasons I don't like to do war blogging. Too messy. Too speculative. Too many unknowns, and in cases like this, too many accusations, counter-accusations, insults, recriminations, and endless ad hominem attacks.

And over what? In this case, allegations which, whether true or false, have nothing whatsoever to do with the big picture. Which is the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Not Scott Thomas Beauchamp and what he says about what a few soldiers did.

This is hardly a roundup, but I've been reading a bunch of posts from a bunch of people. There are many opinions, and the facts are only beginning to come in

According to Matt Sanchez, the military has determined the allegations to be false:

After a thorough investigation that lasted nearly a week the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division has concluded that the allegations made by Private Thomas Scott Beauchamp, the "Baghdad Diarist", have been

"refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false"

The official investigation the 4th IBCT Public Affairs Office qualified as "thorough and professional" concluded late August 1st. Officials would not speculate on the possibility of further action against Private Beauchamp, nor would they confirm his current whereabouts or status.

Sergeant First Class Robert Timmons, the acting public affairs official of the 4th IBCT, 1st ID, in the absence of Major Kirk Luedeke, remarked that despite the high level of attention this case received in the American media, soldiers at the 4th IBCT, 1st Inf. Div, a "surge" Brigade, have not been distracted from their missions.

OK, that report from Matt Sanchez is either accurate or it is not. If the people on the left have anything to refute it, they should say so. Instead, they dredge up old allegations about man's sexual past (which I commented on previously). But what has the the issue of man's sexual past, whether he regrets it, or for that matter whether he dislikes gays now, have to do with the accuracy of his war reporting?

Everything, according to a certain leftist logic.

Amazingly (and I don't know where Ace is getting his information) Ace is pretty sure that Scott Thomas Beauchamp is gay (just go to Ace and scroll; there's plenty more), and he's angry that homosexuality was used as an excuse to discredit Sanchez, but it won't be for Beauchamp. (A one-way street for the left, as Ace points out, although I do not feel the slightest personal disgust over anyone's homosexual conduct.)

This whole affair and the way people's buttons are being pushed reeks of intrigue, deception, duplicity, illogic and culture war irrelevancies from start to finish. Disgusted does not even begin to describe my reaction.

Glenn Reynolds has a roundup of roundups, including Powerline, Michelle Malkin, and the Weekly Standard, and it definitely appears that he's right when he says there's egg on TNR's face.

So it appears that some guy made up a pack of lies, his defenders on the left went ballistic, went on the offensive, and now that the lies are exposed, what's next? Allegations that Beauchamp's critics are homophobes with axes to grind? (You can depend on it!)

Well, I don't give a rat's ass who or what Beauchamp screws!

Again, what has any of this to do with the war in Iraq?

I'd say this even if every word Beauchamp said turned out to be true. Yeah, he said some of his buddies made fun of a deformed woman, danced with the top of a skull, and tortured dogs. The latter sounded especially untrue to me as a dog lover, but scumbags torture dogs here too, and it doesn't change my view of Iraq.

And anyone who can figure out what the sexual preferences of soldiers or reporters should have to do with the war or my view of it, please let me know.

Sorry to sound disgusted, but this whole affair is pretty sleazy.

UPDATE (08/04/07): According to Bob Owens, the Sanchez report about the military investigation has been confirmed:

....the investigation didn't just stop by stating that the claims were uncorroborated; Col. Boylan states categorically that Beauchamp's allegations were false. Not a lot of wiggle room there.

It appears that the proverbial ball is now in The New Republic's court. It will be interesting to see what their next move will be.

(Via Hot Air.)

I don't know what their next move will be, but Ace thinks the sexual preferences of all sources that might corroborate the above are fair game, and should be investigated:

...we do not know if this source has had any homosexual experiences in the past, so admittedly I cannot judge his credibility.

I am also not sure of Michael Goldfarb's sexual preference, so I suppose it's possible he just completely made this up in some deranged homosexual dreamstate, where reality itself melts away in a blur of fantasy, hallucination, and Bravo original programming. I will be sure to ask his opinions on vaginal sex in our next correspondence.

Now that I think about it, I'm realizing that there are a lot of reports and blog posts I've relied on over the years without so much as giving a thought to the sexual preferences of the reporters, bloggers, or sources.

Am I guilty of mere naivité? Or is it a deliberate refusal to examine important issues?

MORE: If this editorial is any indication, sexual preferences of sources and reporters are more important than whether what they say is true.

Is there a newly emerging rule?

posted by Eric on 08.03.07 at 05:41 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5350

Comments

"So it appears that some guy made up a pack of lies, his defenders on the left went ballistic,"

Huh?

First of all, your opening paragraphs were a model of reason. The stories are either true or not. TNR claims that they have all been corroborated (with the FOP / Kuwait error acknowledged). The Right claims that they have been debunked (by some non-transparent Army investigation). Who knows?
You seemed to reach the same conclusion. Who knows?

But then you suddenly conclude that it is a bunch of lies? Why? Because you read summaries of the right-wing take on things?

Furthermore, your summary that I quote at the top of this comment is wholly wacky. Beauchamp wrote his piece, then the "defenders on the left went ballistic"???

How can you even write that? First of all, arent you missing something rather obvious? Where was any need for "defenders" absent a virulent attack? The actual time-line of course, is that Beauchamp wrote the articles, and they were well on their way to obscurity, with no one hardly noticing them, when all of a sudden the right went ballistic. 98% of all the electrons rearragened over this story has come from the right. I have been tracking headlines from blogs on this, and it is hard to find many defenders. Except some people who smell a swift-boat job and take a defensive position on instinct, or principle. But almost all the drive of this story has come from the right, and its hard to believe that you dont know that.

As to the question of how this relates to the larger issue of the war, or how our military behaves - once again, I found NO ONE on the "left" who was pushing any claim that these stories were anything more than one soldier's diaries. It has been, once again, wholly the right which has raised the spectre of an assault on all the military, to add juice to their attack on Beauchamp.

How can you have missed all this?

Tano · August 4, 2007 03:57 AM

I'm saying that I grew sick of reading about this, as it matters very little to me whether the Beauchamp allegations are true or not. If true, the men involved should be disciplined; if not, Beauchamp and TNR seem to be the culprits. But as to no one except "the right" talking about this, are you kidding? Where did the story first appear? TNR. The Washington Post did several pieces on it, and left wing blogs have been screaming about it for the past couple of weeks. Naturally, the right wing grew suspicious, and this led to countercharges that they're "in denial" about U.S. troops' behavior. I don't like to speculate about unverifiable anecdotes which devolve into propaganda along narrative lines, but unless Sanchez has invented the claim about the military's investigation, Beauchamp's allegations have been found to be bogus.

I can't help notice the way they're trying to "prove" the dog torture by linking an unverified video of a injured dog having nothing to do with Beauchamp or his unit, and by asking the manufacturer of the Bradley fighting unit whether it is capable of running over a dog! Amazingly, it is! This is "confirmation"? Are you kidding? Might as well claim that I run over dogs by checking with Toyota to find out whether my car is capable of it!

The Beauchamp story strikes me as squalid partisanship, and has the clear aroma of blatant anti-military propaganda. It seems designed and calculated for no other purpose than to inflame American sentiments against the war. Yet, like much propaganda, it has nothing to do with the war, and I'd prefer to ignore it. It's just that unfortunately, it's become too loud to ignore.

Obviously, if Sanchez turns out to be lying, that's another matter entirely.

Eric Scheie · August 4, 2007 08:45 AM