Trash from Horton

Trashing the trashers who trash the trashers who trashed the trasher that trashed the military? Convoluted? Yes! Inaccurate? No! Let me explain.

In Harper's Magazine an article dated yesterday (August 24, 2007) and authored by Scott Horton (What is it with these fellows named Scott? Except Scott Johnson of Powerline of course!) appears that takes on the neo-con publications and news sources that have trashed The New Republic's reporting by one Scott Thomas (in real life, the husband of a TNR Staffer Scott Thomas Beauchamp). Thomas wrote an article of dubious (nay, not dubious, outright falsehood it seems) truth regarding the depredations by members of his unit in Iraq. I've reported on this in the past (here and here and my blogging partner Woody here, and others here and here and from fellow Munuvian Ace of Spades HQ here). Horton begins his trashing of the neo-cons thusly:

Over the last two weeks there was a flap over a piece published in The New Republic by an American soldier in Iraq named Scott Beauchamp. He described a number of gruesome scenes, some of which did not portray his fellow soldiers in the best of light. The piece drew ferocious blow-back from the Neocon war party, whose hallmark is complete control over the news on the ground and from the front ranks in Iraq. They viewed the report as a violation of their sacred monopoly and were determined to destroy Beauchamp and to lash out at The New Republic.

I have no idea whether Beauchamp’s story was accurate. But at this point I have seen enough of the Neocon corner’s war fables to immediately discount anything that emerges from it.

No idea "whether Beauchamp's story was accurate? Well wow and gee willikers Howdy, this here Horton fellow apparantly either can't read, or is so wrapped up in his own partisan shell that he can't make heads or tales of what is so patently ridiculous that even non veterans of Iraq had difficulty buying it. Not only that, but Messr. Beauchamp has "retracted" his story with the Army. It seems as though our essayest Horton (I wonder if he ever did hear the Who?) reads but understands only what he want's to.

I've bashed the Republicans and conservatives often enough so that I can honestly say that I think I can tell a scoundrel when I read one, but if seems if Mr. Horton lacks that particular ability. He relates a situation where he says that he is personally knowledgable about mis-reporting in the "neo-con Corner."

One example: back last spring, when I was living in Baghdad, on Haifa Street, I sat in the evening reading a report by one of the core Neocon pack. He was reporting from Baghdad, and recounted a day he had spent out on a patrol with U.S. troops on Haifa Street. He described a peaceful, pleasant, upscale community. Children were out playing on the street. Men and women were out going about their daily business. Well, in fact I had been forced to spend the day “in the submarine,” as they say, missing appointments I had in town. Why? This bucolic, marvelous Haifa Street that he described had erupted in gun battles the entire day. In the view of my security guards, with which I readily concurred, it was too unsafe. And yes, I could hear the gunfire and watch some of the exchanges from my position. No American patrol had passed by and there were certainly no children playing in the street. This was the point when I realized that many of these accounts were pure fabrications."

Horton obviously wants us to believe, though he doesn't say, that both his experience and the "neo-con" report occurred on the same day, on the same street during the same time frame. That may or may not have been the case for I've heard many stories about peaceful scenes that were later pictures of hell. Mr. Horton, does the difference between 8:00:00 AM and 8:46:41 AM on September 11, 2001 on a certain densly populated island in New York ring a bell? If he is accurate, and the two "images" are the same at the same time on the same day in the same place then certainly the author of the "bucolic" scene deserves condemnation of the worst kind. But, notice that Mr. Horton does not name the day of the so called fictious story or the author of the false scene. Why would that be Mr. Horton? If you know of it, and don't reveal it one has to wonder why. Maybe you just didn't think it important? This could be your chance at immortality Mr. Horton... go on, tell us who, when, and what exactly happened and I'll be one of the very first to condem the scoundrel.

But, I digress.

What’s interesting about this whole affair is not the Beauchamp story, but the response to it from William Kristol, the Weekly Standard, and their quite amazing ability to exercise total command and control over the public affairs operations at the Pentagon throughout the process.

Oh, yes, I've heard about all the amazing powers of William Kristol and his ability to mesmerize the PAO at the Pentagon. Not only that, but he is controling my typing even as I post this AND controling the minds of all those that read this post and (shudder) believe!

Horton then brings up Jonathan Chait as a witness for the prosecution:

The best volley in this exchange so far was fired yesterday by Jonathan Chait. He titles his piece “The Thuggery of William Kristol” [I won't link to Chait, if you really want to, go and Goggle it.] and he goes straight for the jugular:

Offering up [Kristol’s] interpretation of why TNR would publish such slanders, he concluded, in an editorial titled, “They Don’t Really Support the Troops”:

”Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is now turning against the troops they claim still to support. They sense that history is progressing away from them–that these soldiers, fighting courageously in a just cause, could still win the war, that they are proud of their service, and that they will be future leaders of this country.”

In just two sentences, this passage provides a full summary of the decrepit intellectual state of neoconservatism. First, there is Kristol’s curious premise that tnr only published this essay because we have “turned against” the war. If Beauchamp’s writings were tnr’s attempt to discredit the war, why would his first contribution describe a pro-American Iraqi boy savagely mutilated by insurgents? For that matter, why would we work to undermine the war by publishing a first-person account on the magazine’s back page rather than taking the more straightforward step of, say, editorializing for withdrawal?"

Well, Mr. Chait, I can surmise that he discussed the boy being "savagely mutilated" to lend credence to his faux-reporting.

Horton ends his piece with this little bit of trash:

"...his comments left me thinking back to Bush’s awful Weimar speech from yesterday. Did Bill Kristol have a hand in that atrocity as well? In any event, that speech was clearly stained with Neocon DNA."

Ohhh Mr. Horton. You are sooooo clever aren't you?

There you have it folks, the brilliant left as exemplified by Messrs. Horton and Chait, are supporting the faux-reporting of Scott Thomas Beauchamp, admitted and proven liar. This then, ends my trashing of the trashers (Horton and Chait) who trash the trashers (Kristol) who trashed the trasher(Beauchamp) that trashed the military. Now does my opening sentence make more sense?

Technorati Tags & Filed under: Leftist Agenda, Bozo Alerts,Media, & War on Terror

Schtackink Da Courts

In between running errands for the bride (Honey, will you go put gas in my car?), getting some billings out to insurance companies for treatment of their clients and posting about the brouhaha at TNR, it's been a slow day for yours truly. Well, not THAT slow. But, as I wind down the day, I'm struck by the utter stupidity of one Jean Edward Smith who believes that the current court is lacking in its duty and should be stacked because it is a time honored tradition when the Supreme Court gets... well, you know... (uppity) ... and well, you know, doesn't do its liberal master's bidding... shhh, don't say that out loud... we don't want the libs/progressives to know that we know. Now, just because it hasn't been changed in ohhhh, about 130 years or so doesn't seem to matter to Boss Smith. Nope, 'cause it is used all the time to correct an uppity court. As Smith says:

If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two.

I don't seem to recall any conservative pundit with a conservative majority in both houses demanding the upholding of popular values when a more liberal court decided against them. And I don't really understand that, afterall, stacking is such a popular and well used tactic.

Well, Mr. Smith, I have the perfect solution. I've decided to do away with all of the rif-raff and just get down to a court that I'm sure you could approve of. Lets get the Senate Judiciary folk to fast track it and get-er-done.

Here is a court that I'm sure Mr. Smith would be willing to live with. It has a conservative on it, a black man, a decidely liberal woman, an alcoholic, a mealy mouthed Republican (or two). In fact, I think it is likely to be the perfect court. And if we can figure out how to keep them all alive, why, we won't have to worry about popular values ever being opposed again.

Filed in Bozo Alerts